tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 19, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
but again, i lived the original. the reality i live, we all live together. there is no relation to the sad little stories i heard reported from that book. >> on the deficit plan -- specifically, the president has talked about everyone paying their fair share, but when you are talking over $1 trillion in were savings, -- host: we leave the white house at this point for a quick session in the u.s. house. we will then rejoin the house and the white house briefing.
the speaker pro tempore: house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., september 19, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable michael k. simpson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speakerst house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you have blessed us with all
good gifts and with thankful hearts we express our gratitude. you have created us with opportunities to serve other people in their need, to share together in respect and affection and to be faithful in the responsibilities we have been given. in this moment of prayer, please grant to the members of this people's house the gifts of wisdom and decertainment that in their words and actions they will do justice, love with mercy and walk humbly with you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it
stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 15, 2011, at 5:50 p.m. that the senate agreed to, with aye an amendment, house joint resolution 66, with best wished, i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on september 16, 2011, at 9:07
a.m. that the senate spassed -- passed without amendment h.r. 2887, that the senate agreed to senate resolution 268. with best wished, i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore wolf on friday, september 16, 2011. the clerk: h.r. 2887, a bill to provide an extension of service and air transportation programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lares before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2, i have the honor to transmit a creeled nfl received from the white house on september 19, 2011, at 11:35 a.m., and said to contain a message from the president whereby he submits the fiscal plan entitled, living within our means and investing in the
future. the president's plan for economic growth and deficit reduction. with best wished, i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read the message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, this continues to be a time of challenge for our country. we face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighborhoods -- neighbors jobless and a political crisis that has made things worse. millions of americans are looking for work. across our country, families are doing their best just to scrape by. giving up nights out with the family to save on gas or make the mortgage or postponing retirement to send a child to college. these men and women grew up with faith in an america where hard work and responsibility paid off. they believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share.
they believed that if you work hard and play by the rules, you would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits. if you did the right thing, could you make it in america. for decades now americans have watched that compact erode. they have seen the debts too often stacked against them and they know that washington has not always put their interests first. too often our nation's capitol has been consumed by partisanship, too often the needs of special interests or politics have been put ahead of what's been best for the country. that is what we must change. the american people work hard to meet their responsibilities. now as the nation faces an economy that's not growing and creating jobs as it should so must its leaders. while the continued recovery of our economy will be driven by the businesses and workers across our land, policymakers in washington can take steps to help americans right now and set
the most favorable conditions we can grow for job creation in years to come. we can live within our means and invest in the future. that is why last week i presented to the congress and the american people the american jobs act, to provide a jolt to the economy and give companies confidence that if they invest in a tire, there will be customers for their products and services. this jobs bill will put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. it will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans and more jobs for the long-term unemployed. it will provide a tax break for companies that hire new workers and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working american and every small business. it will create jobs for people to rebuild our aging infrastructure and repair the
modernized -- repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. i am committed to paying for this jobs bill. the budget control act that i signed into law last month will cut annual government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. it also charges the joint select committee on deficit reduction with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in savings. that's part of this jobs bill, i am asking the congress to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the american jobs act. in addition i believe that the congress should seize the opportunity that this new committee presents and do much more so that we can put the country on a sustainable fiscal path which is critical for our long-term economic growth and competitiveness. for this reason i am sending to the congress this detailed plan to pay for this jobs bill and realize more than $3 trillion in net deficit reduction over the next 10 years.
combined with the approximately $1 trillion in savings from the first part of the budget control act, this would generate more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. this would bring the nation to the point where current spending is no longer adding to our debt and where our debt is no longer increasing as a share of our economy. an important milestone on the way to restoring fiscal discipline and moving us toward balance. this plan is balanced, one that asks everyone to do their part. it includes nearly $580 billion in cuts and reforms to mandatory programs in which $320 billion is savings from federal health programs such as medicare and medicaid. these changes are necessary to maintain the promise of medicare as we know it. the plan also realizes more than $1 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. from our drawdowns in afghanistan and iraq. and the plan calls for the
congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform that lowers tax rates, closes loopholes, boosts job creation here at home, cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion and observes the rule that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay smaller share for their income and taxes than middle class families pay. to assist the committee in its work i also includes specific tax loophole closures and measures to close the tax base. with the expiration of the high number tax cuts these measures would be more than enough to reach the $1.5 trillion budget target. they include cutting tax preferences for high income households, eliminating tax breaks for oil and gas companies, closing the carried interest loophole for investment fund managers and eliminating benefits for those who use corporate jets. in sum, i plan -- the plan i am sending to congress today is a
blueprint for how we can reduce this deficit, pay down our debt and pay for the american jobs act in the process. i have little doubt that some of these proposals will not be popular with those who benefit from these affected programs and some of these changes are ones that would not make it if it were not for our fiscal situation. but we are all in this together and all of us must contribute to getting our economy moving again and on a firm fiscal footing. after all, we are all connected. no single individual built america on his or her own. we built it together. we have been and always will be one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. we have always been a people with responsibilities to ourselves and with a responsibility to one another. this means that as americans we work hard to find a job, keep their businesses afloat and grow and provide for their kids, the representatives in washington must meet their responsibilities and make the tough choices
needed to get our economy back on frack. -- track. this plan lives up to a simple idea. as a nation we can live within our means while still making the investments with he need to prosper. it follows a balanced approach, asking everyone to do their part. so no one has to bear the burden. and it says that everyone, including millionaires and billionaires, have to pay their fair share. these may be tough times for our country but i have a deep faith in the american spirit and we are tougher than the times that we live in and bigger than the politics we have recently seen. if we all put partisanship aside and roll up our sleeves, i have no doubt that we can meet the challenges of the moment and show the world once again why the united states of america remains the greatest country on earth. signed, barack obama, the white house, september 19, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committees on agriculture, armed services, education and the work force,
energy and commerce, financial services, house administration, the judiciary, natural resources, oversight and government reform, rules, space, science and technology, small business, transportation and infrastructure and the committee on ways and means and ordered printed. without objection, the house stands adjourned until noon tomorrow
it is a very detailed list of proposals -- would bring our deficit down to a level below 3% of gdp, which is sustainable over the long run because it allows the debt burden to stabilize. it would not solve all the problems facing the country. there are still other things we will have to deal with as a country, but all those things will be harder unless we put in place a set of long-term fiscal reforms that allow americans -- i note that this political system is able to allow us to return to live within our means, so it would meet that test for financial prudence for financial soundness. >> [inaudible] the technical question -- have you gentlemen estimated how much of a surplus you need to handle the problems in the medium term? >> yes, primary surplus is the term that refers to revenues and
expenditures being balanced without interest, so you are taking in as much as you are paying out except for interest. that is what primary balance refers to. for an economy like the united states, you need to have the deficit below 3% of gdp to achieve the basic test. why is that test important? that is the level that stops the debt from growing as a share of the economy appeared to bring it below that level, the debt starts to fall as a share of the economy. why is that important? if we are not able to do that as a country, growth will be weaker in the future. we will have less ability to meet the basic fundamental needs of the american economy going forward. that is why it is important, and that is what the basic threshold is. >> [inaudible] >> that is right. that is the test for financial stability. >> in the global situation, in
europe, what do you see in countries, not just china, but others as well? >> one of the great strengths of the world economy looking forward is the prospect of a long period of rapid growth in major world economies, including the ones you referred to. it is very important that we want to see that growth happened over a sustained kind. will happen -- that will happen as a country from the realization of this very optimistic long-term growth prospects. you will see more jobs, and we expect to be major beneficiaries of growth of that long ago we are seeing. we want to see them contribute to global growth and do so in a way that is more balanced and fair, and they will face different policy requirements because they are in a different situation, but again, they are a great source of strength, and the faster they grow in the
future, the more we will benefit in the future and the more balanced the world economy will be. >> what action would you encourage them to take the help the europeans? >> i think we all have an interest in a strong, credible resolution of the financial pressures now in europe, not just united states, not just europeans. the global economy as a whole depends on their being -- there being a sensible resolution of this financial pressures. you have seen the nations of the world through the imf makes essential contributions to the challenges ongoing europe, and that just underscores the stakes we all have in more growth and financial stability in europe. >> [inaudible] >> if i may add to that, in fact, the life we live now is a global economy, and recovery is
weak worldwide. if we are coordinating economic policies and regulations with those of key allies to make sure u.s. businesses are not at a disadvantage in the global marketplace, especially when it comes to jobs. >> again, a basic fundamental tenet of the president's economic strategy for the country is to do things that make us more competitive over the long run, that improve incentives for investing in the united states, that make it more likely, not less likely, that the things the world needs are made in this country, in the united states of america. that requires not just better education for americans, it requires investing, innovation, improving our long-term infrastructure, but it also requires things like tax reform, changes to the incentives that affect all businesses to make us more competitive as a country. absolutely, a basic principle that guides the policies that this president evaluates -- are they going to make us stronger in the long run as a place for people to build, create, and
invest? >> you indicated that details of the tax reform would not really come out yet. there are too many variables. yet, there has also been an indication that he would come forward with a stand-alone corporate tax bill if the super committee does not enact any. i guess my question is -- how can you have that happen if there are not details? also, does that mean the corporate tax reform white paper will not come out, which does have details and which he said would come out after the default was resolved? >> soon. not sure quite when. sometime before the end of the year. we will lay out a set of broad proposal and corporate tax forms to meet this test in making us more competitive as a country, strengthening incentives for investing as a country. we will be guided in terms of
strategy by how we make sure we maximize the chances of reform coming on sensible terms. but i expect you will see us lay out a relatively soon the detailed proposal you referred to. >> [inaudible] >> again, we have not made that judgment yet. there has been a lot of interest not just in the super committee but in congress generally, and we have been talking actively to the principal parties involved. again, what we will be guided by in terms of when and how we advance the specific proposals is what will maximize the chance we get something done on terms we can support to meet this basic test, which is to make the country stronger over the long term, make sure we are improving incentives for the united states. >> thank you guys. >> ok, let's move on here. april, you have your hand up.
>> i want to ask you a couple of questions. we are seeing september 31 as the date [inaudible] >> as you know, the president has written that he believes the deaf penalty does little to deter crime, but that some crimes merit the ultimate punishment. some of you may also recall that when the president was in the illinois state senate, this was an issue where he worked across the aisle to find common ground. with regards to specific cases, i have not talked to the president about that, and i would refer questions about it to the department of justice. >> a follow-up on that, please. [inaudible]
review of the criminal punishment system as well as deaf penalty. why is there a review with something, particularly on a deaf penalty basis, on racial aspects, know that certain people on deaf row and a lot of those cases, those people are found to be innocent. is there any thought of a moratorium on deaf penalty cases right now? >> i am not aware of a review of that nature, but i would direct you to the department of justice. so not aware of that kind of -- i am not aware of that kind of discussion going on. >> [inaudible]
is there any reason to think that after this week and of the policy, they are any closer to or further away from making that application? >> we obviously saw what mr. abbas said. we remain where we were on the advisability of unilateral action that will bring the palestinians no closer to the state had they seek. we generally as a rule -- this administration, this president -- support the actions that move the parties closer together and do not support the things that move them further apart. that is our guiding principle, if you will. we believe that the only way the israelis and palestinians will achieve the two-state solution that is fair and equitable to both sides that allows for a
jewish state of israel is through direct negotiations. that is the focus of the diplomatic efforts we are engaged in. >> [inaudible] >> it has not been scheduled, but we believe that give you a leaders will meet. when we had a scheduling update for you, we will give it to you. >> what does the president intend to say about a palestinian state but in his un address? >> well, i think you ought to listen to the address. [laughter] i am not going to preview the speech for him. >> [inaudible] >> again, i do not want to foreshadow or preview the speech that he will give. he will talk about a number of issues that are very much on the minds of the international community and the leaders gathered in new york this week, but i will not review it for that that except to say that our position on middle east peace,
his position on the right way forward is well known. >> on palestine, has the administration specifically asked britain or any other members of the security council [inaudible] >> you know our position on this. it has been clearly stated. what kind of conversations we have had with our allies and others i will leave to your imagination. i am not going to confirm or -- you know. >> [inaudible] >> i think there have been intense diplomatic negotiations about the right way forward. we firmly believe that the right way forward, the way to achieve the very goal that the palestinians seek is through direct negotiations. in fact, it is the only way to achieve it, and that actions that do not move the two parties closer to direct negotiations
are counterproductive. we support those actions that move the two parties closer towards those negotiations. negotiations, which are the only path to the two-state solution that both state -- both sides desire. all the way in the back, yes. >> why did secretary geithner refer to the new component as a modest [inaudible] >> he was talking about it with regard to the size of the economy. the president spoke and has spoken clearly about the decisions that were taken in the previous administration that took surpluses and turned them into deficits -- massive deficits -- and they include the two tax cuts. they include an unfunded medicare prescription program. they include two wars put on
credit cards. we have spent a lot of time in this administration cleaning up the tent, the elephant and, if you will, and it has not always been an easy task because it has required some very tough decisions that were not always popular but had to be done to prevent a great depression from happening again in the united states. it required actions to make sure that the financial industry in this country did not collapse, actions to make sure that the automobile industry in this country did not collapse, actions to make sure that the kind of unbelievable contraction in our economy that was taking place in the quarter before this president took office was halted and turned towards growth again. the kinds of policies that resulted in hemorrhaging of jobs at a rate that none of us in this room have probably experienced had to be halted and reversed. i think we have been clear about
that. i think the american people understand that. what the president is focused on now is the urgent need to take sensible actions. the kinds of actions that have enjoyed bipartisan support in the past to grow the economy and get hiring accelerated. he has also focused as part of his broader economic vision on the need to tackle our medium and long-term deficit and debt problems, which secretary geithner and director lou just discussed. he believes that the responsible approach is to do both here and not to simply wash our hands and say there's nothing we can do to help the economy now, to help the fact that growth is stalled, help the fact that unemployment remains at 1.9% -- at 9.1%, and only focus on the main issues. he believes you have to do both, and that is what leadership
requires. >> i just want to give you the opportunity to respond [inaudible] it seems like the entire office for dissipated in -- participated in. is ruled by his advisers and at times cannot make tough decisions. have you had the opportunity to respond? >> fenty for that. [laughter] -- thanks you for that. [laughter] i have not read the book. very simple things. facts that could be ascertained, " said that are wrong in this book. i would caution anyone to assume
that if you cannot get those facts right, that you can get a broader analysis right. timothy geithner, who lived it, just told you that if there is no resemblance to the reality that she lived, and what i just talked about goes right to that. the extraordinarily difficult times that this country was going for it -- going through when this president took office, and the complex and difficult decisions that this administration and this president told, they were not easy, but they were necessary. it took decisive leadership and clarity of vision about where we needed to move the country. and it took a willingness to suffer political risk in order to do the right thing for the country. that was absolutely at the heart of all of the decisions the president made. >> what part was lifted? >> we can get that for you.
it is almost word for word. yes? >> [inaudible] welcoming president obama putting ideas on the table, despite the concern over deficit reduction strategy is being defined by political posturing. can you react to this notion put forth by republicans? >> i think that that is rich, as an assertion. we have been clear from the beginning, this president has been clear from the beginning of this process that he is willing to make tough decisions that are not easy for democrats. the challenge to take on the sacred cows within his own party. he has simply asked his home party to do the same. there appeared to be an opportunity to do that with the
speaker of the house, but unfortunately that did not come to fruition. i would point you to the fact, and this goes back to what darlene was saying, slow down. first of all, the speaker of the house is willing to put revenues on the table. secondly, something like two dozen republican senators said they supported the gang of six proposals. which have, by the way, more revenue than what the president is putting forward. republicans in the larger world, including rank-and-file amongst the american electorate, supported the balanced approach. i think that when it comes to accusations and political posturing, some folks should look in the mirror. thank you very much. sorry, social security. i forgot. sorry. >> that is ok. social security, i wanted to ask
the secretary -- i am a senior citizen. [inaudible] [laughter] i have an lot of people calling me asking about social security. they say that this is all that they have. also, you are talking about medicare. what are they doing? >> first of all, as you know, and as jack discussed, the president did not include social security within his $4 trillion debt reduction plan. he did believe that we needed a separate track to take measures to strengthen social security for the long-term. it is not in this proposal. it is precisely because, if we take a balanced approach to tackling our deficit problems and debt problems, we can do it in a way that ensures that the
fundamental guarantee will see american people with american seniors being honored and maintained. what happens if we do not take a balanced approach, and if we follow the descriptions that others have put forward, you have to end it. you have to basically say -- seniors, this is what should get, the rest is up to you and you are on your own. as far as the president is concerned, that is not the right answer. thank you all very much. >> [inaudible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the white house spokesman, jay carney, finishing up the white house briefing today. joined for a short time by timothy geithner and jeff blue, answering questions about the $3
trillion debt plan that the president offered this morning. reviewing the key features of the plan, $1.50 trillion in new revenue. much of it is taxes over 10 years, repealing the bush tax cuts. $580 billion in cuts to mandatory benefit programs. $430 billion could be saved due to lowering the interest payments on the national debt. you can read the president's plan in its entirety. we have a link to it on our website, c-span.org, as well as a continuing discussion on the deficit proposal on our facebook page. all for your thoughts, comments, concerns, all on c-span.org. c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. the for congress to continue
federal spending. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they formulate a plan to lower the debt. follow the presidential candidates as they continue to campaign across the country. it is all available to you on radio, online, and social media sites. search, watch, and share any time with our digital bus and local content vehicles, bringing our resources to local communities. it is washington, your way. the c-span that works, created by cable and provided as a public service. the canadian parliament opened its fall session today. this afternoon, the prime minister will take questions from parliament members. we will have live coverage starting at 2:15 eastern. tonight, the impact of the proposed merger between at&t and t-mobile on "de communicators."
tonight, on c-span 2, are companion network. william jennings bryant, one of the best known speakers of his time. one of the first politicians to campaign from the backs of railroad cars and automobiles. he changed political history. he ran for president three times, and lost. live from fairview, friday, at 8:00 eastern. learn more about all of scout -- upcoming programs c-span.org. the palestinian president, mahmoud abbas, said that today he would not be deterred from seeking u.s. recognition for the state of palestine, despite what he called tremendous pressure to drop the request and resume peace talks with israel. he spoke to reporters on route to israel.
territories that israel captured in 1967, we will show you the speech to this -- to the palestinian leaders on friday. this is about half of an hour. >> sons and daughters of the palestinian people, inside and outside of the palestinian territories, i am conveying my appreciation to go to the united nations, to convey to that international organization and tell them about the torture and said grounds that we are living in, generation after generation, in the refugee camps where they
are deprived. their rights are violated every day in front of the world. the world has established the united nations agency to protect the people's rights. and to present the occupation by force. the tragedy of our people, the boom from the united nations, hundreds of revolutions and recommendations from the security council, these resolutions are in vain. we go to demand a legal right, the full membership of the palestinian state in this organization.
to the palestinian organizations we portray the pain of our people and put an end to the torture. we enjoy our rights, freedom, independence from palestinian states on the borders, fourth of june, 1967, with jerusalem, east jerusalem at the capital of our nation. our continuous efforts to reach through to the negotiations for a solution, to lead to the establishment of an independent palestinian state is reaching the loggerhead. for the israeli government that is rejecting the commitments of negotiations based on international and legal resolutions, 5 for the plo.
it is the diplomacy of settlements and the jewish government's approach to jerusalem, never leaving the solution of those countries. a big hope to have an gain this membership, but this will never touch the plo as being bloat -- legal only. its rule will be there until we have our full and comprehensive independence. the role of the plo will be there until we have full
independence. and to have the issue of solving all of the problems and issues, on top of which is the issue of refugees. [applause] of course, as you know, the plo is the higher and supreme power of the palestinian people. the palestinian national authority is established with the support of the plo. that is why everyone, and how we lose them, they did not know. the plo will be there. not under the reach of a solution, but through implementation of solutions.
not the issue that we need to be implemented. including the issue of these refugees. [applause] >> sisters and brothers, along the last year we have expressed readiness for negotiations, responding to the international mediation efforts. but we will see nothing from the israeli government except the time and imposed facts on the ground. during the last two years, we have spread and observed the establishment of the institutions of our country. have witnessed the success of our efforts.
and how we deserve independence. that is right, the world report issued this month has praised the jobs and efforts from the old fees and domains in the security and justice of economic development and revenue. praising these achievements and considering that real progress, which goes beyond the 11 other positions in the middle east, north africa, and elsewhere. [applause] this is one of the most important reasons that makes us ready to talk about september.
we said this for three reasons. the first, obama said he needed to see a palestinian state with full membership. second, the quartet said that they had one month to start negotiations in september. and to end it in september. three, we have said that we are committing ourselves to establishing palestinian authority agencies that deserving national stage. then we had the world reporter and the charity from an arab agency. what we have, better than what the others have. the mitigation of the palestinian state this year, and the numbers that were recognized, they go beyond the
accessories. it is another indication of how the world views us with the aspirations of the palestinian people to independent state. the majority of the world, two- thirds of the world recognizes the palestinian state. the other third recognized, but do not want to give us an embassy. we are the only people worldwide that are still under occupation. there is no island or area, isolated or not. every part of the world has its own flag and see that the united nations except the palestinian people. we are asking why. why today? a democratic state?
that guarantees the individual collective freedoms and commitments of human rights and women's rights to the transparency and the dominance of everything. democracy, freedom, conservancy, we have everything. that is why we do not think that anyone will say our people were to. still, we have an issue. still, we have an issue. we need to have a full membership to be able to go to negotiations adopted by the world to which we can negotiate a permanent situation.
germans, refugees, borders, security, refugees. and our prisoners in israeli prisons. [applause] because at that time, there will be more prisoners of the state. they are not terrorists. they are not criminals. we always consider them at the top of our demands. they will be shackled and discussed. that is why i am saying, my brothers, it is a jump on air. it is a lateral move. it is a lateral step. a step where we are talking to
193 countries. you consider it and call it a unilateral step? a jump on the air? ok, unilateral. that is why. i said that this was not right. we also have to understand that we are not going there to bring independence. we will come back to negotiate the others. we need to have a full membership in the united nations. but, i hope not to maximize things that we are doing backwards, independence. this is not the case. we need to be careful. those that say that you govern
with nonsense are not right. that is why we need to deal with matters that are logic. we need to work within logic. we go to the united nations to put the world's responsibilities, with an olive branch in our hands. an olive branch that is carried by the late leader, yasser arafat, 30 to 60 years ago. and not, as some people say, in order to isolate israel, or take the legal status of the country. we will not isolate israel into a legal status.
no one can take its legal status or the private from its legal status. it is a recognized country. but we need to isolate the policies of israel. and we have to take the legal status of occupation, not of israel. what we need is to put an end to the occupation. the occupation practices aid the pain that we suffer every day. these practices, representatives storming, destroying houses, increasing these policies from the seller's, when the country is burned most, training more, dogs, am i right? they trained dogs to attack us.
they send pigs to stay in the lands. they are facing us with three things. the sellers are always, with dogs that are well trained, be careful, and pigs to take the trees. what is this? of course, there are new inventions on the israeli side. citizens going to the united nations, we need not deprive ourselves of our legal rights. because there is a lot of insecurity in the area. these aggressions today, what
happened? before that there were massacres from others and others. but today, we all remember in 1982 there was a massacre where we lost thousands of palestinians. we are there for massacres. 63 years there have been massacres. this is a time for us to feel bothered. we need the nation's supported by the will of the people. the people who are not for these nations. and two are allowed to live in this way.
and who are supported by the sacrifices of our martyrs. our martyrs. in without those murders, we could never reach this point. [applause] supported by our arab and islamic worlds, the whole world loves these. a lot of people deserve support. it was the supporting us, with a lot of people coming to say they recognize the palestinian state, despite the fact that there are thousands of miles away from us. let me be frank with you. we are facing an important and historic mission.
we cannot minimize the obstacles for achieving our objectives and goals through the efforts. if it is a success, we need to know that the next day the palestinian states will be recognized and our struggle will continue. and the next mission will be also difficult. but we got the independence. we got the recognition of the world. our land is occupied and it is not a disputed land, as the israeli government said. that is why they build and build. wherever they can reach, they will build.
the goal of our soldiers is to rebuild. these are our borders. this is where we build our fate. this is an occupied territory. 1967, the settlement is not legal. negotiations after that, despite the difficulties that are there, these are negotiations between two states. and occupied one and an occupying one. i promise you that the results that will be achieved, whatsoever the results, will be given to our institutions to take the position of the governing result that goes to the united nations. this is not the palestinian
strategy. it is part of the palestinian strategy with the aim of regaining its capital on the borders of 1967. we need our country to go back to the geographical map, through negotiations. saying to our people, even outside, in the camps and everywhere, that adhere to our principles, i call upon every one to commit themselves to the values of the struggle for not giving any one that protects israel, or that pretax -- or pretax their legal conflict, we want a resolution that recognizes our state with jerusalem that its capital.
our people will prove, as they proved previously, that they are a people that is able to overcome and unified with being supported on the ground with political power as, stressing that this is a peaceful people and nation, inside and outside. and all of the movements should be peaceful. because israeli intelligence has said that they have never heard that word before, peaceful. ok, i am now saying peaceful. [applause] so, we need to be moving in a peaceful way, to avoid as much as we can, to be trapped into resolutions. what they want us to be, we always read.
we need to go back to what they want from this. i hope. i urge every palestinian going tomorrow somewhere, that we need to be aware. do not give them that chance. we want a state. we need a state. i say to the united nations, nothing more. now, every evaluation of the peaceful movement of us will take us. and will not go to our benefit. it will destroy our efforts and shedthe palestinian interest is putting an end to the visions that happened in 2007. we will continue. we will go on and exert every
possible effort to achieve that the reconciliation we consider a strategic and national game and goal. -- national aim and goal. we will continue. the unity of the palestinians, the unity of the land is the most powerful weapon that we have and we need to say no to everyone who wants to say palestinians are the main obstacle. we need to get rid of this division. here as well as their, i wish to thank all arab countries and all the agencies that support us in
our full membership of the united nations. we are going to the security council. you can believe that. [applause] please, sit down. i am sure you don't believe that. our decision we said to everyone, we are going to the security council. after my speech at the general assembly, i will hand in the request to the un secretary general to be given to the head of the security council.
regarding the other options, we have no decisions until now. we have a lot of options, but decisions up until now, no. in the name of allah, almighty, a verse from the car on says [unintelligible] >> the canadian parliament opens its session today and the prime minister will take questions from parliament members. we will have live coverage at 2:15 eastern. and tonight on "the communicators" -- the proposed merger between at&t and 80 mobile. that's tonight -- and t mobil. tonight at 8:00.
>> we continue to have some technical issues and we're working to correct those problems. president obama, earlier today proposing 1.5 trillion dollars in new taxes, mainly on the wealthy as part of his plan to identify $3 trillion in deficit reduction. [no audio] preventing us from investing in things like education. [no audio]
[no audio] [no audio] achieve the $4 trillion in deficit-reduction we -- both parties believe we needed. unfortunately, the speaker walked away from a balanced package. what we agreed to instead was not all the grand. but it was a start. roughly one trillion dollars in cuts to domestic spending and defense spending. everyone knows we have to do more in a special joint committee is designed to do
that. today, i am laying out a set of prints -- set of specific proposals to lay out what we started this summer. it is a plan that reduces our debt by more than $four trillion and achieve these savings in a way that is fair. by asking everyone to do their part so that no one has to bear too much of the burden on their own. all told, this plan cuts to dollars in spending for every dollar in new revenues. in addition to the one trillion dollars in spending we have already cut from the budget, our plan makes additional spending cuts that need to happen if we are to solve this problem. we reform agricultural subsidies that pay large farms for crops they do not grow. we make modest adjustments to federal retirement programs. we reduced the tax money that
goes to fannie mae and freddie mac. we also ask the largest financial firms, those -- to repay the american people for every dime we spend. we say that additional trillion dollars as we end of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. these are counted as part of the budget plan nearly every republican in the house voted for. finally, this includes structural reforms to reduce the cost of health care in programs like medicare and medicaid. keep in mind, we've included a number of reforms in the health care law which will go a long way. this reduces wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments while changing incentives that lead to excessive health care costs. it will help lead to the faster approval of metal and -- of drugs, it will change the way
we pay for health care. instead of just paying for procedures, providers will be paid more when they improved results. such steps will save money and improve care. these changes are phased in slowly. while we need to reduce health- care costs -- costs, i am not going to allow that to be turned into a voucher program that leads seniors at the mercy of the health care 8 -- health- care companies. we will reform medicare and medicaid, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations. that includes our commitment to social security. social security is not the primary cause of our deficits, but it does face long-term challenges as our country grows
older and both parties are going to need to work together on a separate track to strengthen social security for our children and grandchildren. this is how we can reduce spending -- scarring the budget for every dime of waste and inefficiency, reforming government spending, and making modest adjustments to medicare and medicaid. but all of these reductions in spending by themselves will not solve our press fiscal problems. we cannot just cut our way out of this whole. it is going to take a balanced approach. if we are going to make spending cuts, many of which we would not make if we were not facing such large budget deficits, then it for is only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share. in the last week, the speaker of the house, john boehner, gave a speech about the economy. to his credit, he made the point we cannot afford the kind of politics that says it's my way or the highway.
i was encouraged by that. here's the problem. in the same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever. he said -- i am quoting him -- there is only one option, and that option and only option relies entirely on cuts. that means slashing education, surrendered research necessary to keep america's technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways, and airports to get worse. it would cripple our competitiveness and ability to win the jobs of the future. it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle-class and the poor while asking nothing of the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations. the speaker says we cannot have
it my way or the highway, and then says my way. or the highway. that's not smart. it's not right. if we are going to meet our responsibilities, we have got to do it together. i am proposing a real, serious cuts in spending. when you a clue -- when you include the trillion dollars of cuts i have signed into law, these would be among the biggest cuts in spending in our history.but they have to be part of a larger plan that is balanced, a plan that asks the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share just like everyone else. that is why the plan eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations. tax breaks of small businesses and middle-class families do not get. if tax reform does not get done, this plan asks the
wealthiest americans to go back to paying the same rates they paid during the 1990's, before the bush tax cuts. becausee, it's not anyone looks forward to the prospect of raising taxes or paying more taxes. i don't. in fact, i've cut taxes for the middle-class and small businesses and through the american jobs act, we cut taxes again, but we cannot afford the special low rates for the wealthy. rates, by the way, that were meant to be temporary. back when these tax cuts, back in 2001 and 2003 were talked about, they were talked about as temporary measures. we cannot afford them when we're running these big deficits. i am also ready to work with democrats and republicans to reform our entire tax code, get rid of the decades of accumulated loopholes and special interest carve out and other tax expenditures that
stack the deck against small- business owners and ordinary families who cannot afford washington lobbyists or fancy accounts. our tax code is more than 10,000 pages long. if you stack up all of volumes, there almost 5 feet tall. that means, it you pay often depends less on what you make and more on how well you can game the system. that is especially true of the corporate tax code. we have one of the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but it is riddled with exceptions and central in -- and special-interest loopholes. some companies get out of paying a lot of taxes while the rest of them end up having to foot the bill. this makes our entire economy less competitive and our country a less desirable place to do business. that has to change. our tax code should not give an advantage to companies to the best-connected lobbyists, it should give it to the companies that are best -- that are creating jobs in the united
states of america. we can lower the corporate rate if we get rid these special deals. i am ready, i am eager, to work with democrats and republicans, to reform the tax code, to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make america more competitive. but any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help cope -- to help close the deficit. that has to be part of the formula. any reform should fall another simple principle -- middle- class families should not pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. that is pretty straightforward. it's hard to argue against that. warren buffett's secretary should not pay higher tax rate and warren buffett. there is no justification for it. it is wrong that in the united states of america, a teacher, a
nurse, or construction worker returns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than someone pulling in $50 million. anybody who's as we cannot change the tax code to correct that, anyone who assigns some -- who signs some pledge to protect every single tax loophole that as long as they live, they should be called out. they should have to defend that and fairness. explain why somebody making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15% on their taxes when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that. paying a higher rate. they ought to have to answer for that. if they are pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place. they should remember, the only pledge that really matters is
the pledge we take to uphold the constitution. we are already hearing the usual defenders of these loopholes saying this is class warfare. i reject the idea that asking hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare. i think it's just the right thing to do. i believe the american middle- class who have been pressured relentlessly for decades believe it's time they were fought for as hard as lobbyists and lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires' and big corporations. no one wants to punish success in america. what's great about this country is the believe anyone can make it and anyone should be able to try. the idea that anyone can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires', this is the land of opportunity, that is great.
all i and saying is those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. we should not get a better deal than ordinary families get. i think most wealthy americans would agree, if they knew this would help us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future. it comes down to this. we have to prioritize. both parties agree we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount. what choices are wriggling to make to reach that goal? either we ask the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share in taxes or we have to ask seniors to pay more for medicare. we cannot afford to both. either we get education and
medical research or we have to reform the tax code so the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies do not get. we cannot afford to do both. this is not class warfare, it's math. the money is going to have to come from someplace. if we are not willing to ask those who have done extraordinarily well to help america close the deficit, and we're trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, the math, the logic, says everyone has to do a lot more. we've got to put the entire burden on the middle-class and the poor, we have to scale back on investments that have always helped our economy grow, we have got to settle for second railroads and secondary bridges and second rate airports and
schools that are crumbling. that is unacceptable to me. that is unacceptable to the american people. it will not happen on my watch. i will not support, i will not support any plan that puts all the burden for closing are deficits on ordinary americans. i will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share. we are not going to have a one- sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable. none of the changes i am proposing are easy or politically convenient. it's always more popular to
promise the moon and leave the bill for after the next election or the election after that. that has been true since our founding. george washington grappled with this problem. he said -- toward the payment of debt, there must be revenue. that to have revenue, there must be taxes, and no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant. he understood the dealing with the debt -- these are his words -- always a choice of difficulties. he also knew that public servants were not elected to do what was easy. they were not elected to do what was politically advantageous. it's our responsibility to the country before party and do what is right for the future. that is what this debate is
about. it is not about numbers on a ledger. it's not about figures on a spreadsheet. it's about the economic future of this country and about whether we will do what it takes to create jobs and growth and opportunity while facing the legacy of debt for everything we of built over generations. it is also about fairness. it is about whether in fact we are in this together. and we're looking out for one another. we know what is right. it's time to do what is right. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
the technical issues at the beginning of the president's remarks. we do plan to air it again tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span and you can see it any time at c-span.org, where you can also find a link to the president's proposal. recently, the international monetary fund managing director said the global economy is still in danger and there is still a risk of world economy slipping back into recession. she talked about future challenges and solutions to restore economic growth. held at the woodrow wilson center, this is about one hour.
i am the director and president of the wilson center and we are honored to host a new chief of the international monetary fund for her first public speech in washington d.c. i'm also pleased to recognize many of my former congressional colleagues who joining -- who joined her at breakfast earlier this morning. some of them are here, some of them had to go back to congress, hopefully to a productive congress that will solve this economic crisis, but they are or were senator susan collins of maine, kay bailey hutchison of texas -- [reading names] we are also joined by some of
the wilson center board members and i want to recognize our chairman, and by a number of ambassadors, a good friend of mine from the united arab emirates, cornelius smith from the bahamas, [reading names] it is a pleasure for me for the first president of the woodrow wilson center as a woman to host the first woman to lead the imf and its 66-year history. this is not the first glass ceiling she has shattered. prior to becoming managing director, she served as france's minister of finance, the first woman ever to become finance
minister of a large industrial countries. she was head of an international law firm and eventually becoming its first female chair. she is also, to my knowledge, the first person ever to be on the cover of "forbes" magazine and featured in "vogue" in the same month. that was funny. [laughter] she took the helm of the imf during the greatest shock to hit the global economy in our lifetimes. the series of economic aftershocks combined with ongoing post-earthquake misery in japan, political turmoil in the middle east, and a deeply worrying euro crisis has fuelled a worldwide slowdown. as a recovering politician myself, i'm well aware that while countries with deeply interconnected financial systems grapple with unique yet shared problems, their embattled leaders often find themselves
with few tools left in the box. caught in a spiral of political fear and forces determined to prevent them from doing what really needs to be done. what in the world could i be talking about? the united states has our country has a rare second chance to lead as congress begins to debate and the super committee begins its work. we must summon the courage and bipartisanship to reach beyond elections in 2012 and made short and long term decisions that are in the interest of our country and the global economy. there's no great mystery surrounding what congress must do, nor need we, or they, start from scratch. we have simple goals. by the way, i think alice rivlin is right here in the front row.
we must tackle the deficit, future entitlements, and public spending to we must take bipartisan measures to promote growth, including streamlining the tax code, which i am heartened to hear is under discussion, while lowering rates across the board. we should seriously consider a national infrastructure bank, which makes sense from every angle in terms of quickly building american jobs. we must do so quickly in a bipartisan manner that gives the country and the markets in the world renewed confidence in our stewardship. next week, the imf will meet in washington for its annual meeting. this is yet another chance to address these problems head on and with urgency. true, global leadership, balanced with deep insight into an understanding of individual national problems will be critically important next week. in christine lagarde, we are seeing that true, gold leadership.
clear, positive, and responsible, and, obviously, this morning, we are all anxious to hear more. please join me in welcoming the managing director of the imf, a woman who had shattered all ceilings, christine lagarde, to make her first public speech in washington, d.c. [applause] >> thank you very much for having me and thank you for listening to my remarks this morning. i would like to first of all thank the wilson center for their invitation. i would like to recognize and give my deep appreciation to jane. in her long and distinguished career, she has worked in the executive branch, law, and we
even share the privilege of having being chairman of law firms, which is a good training for managing egos. [laughter] and of course, congress, where she has served nine terms in the house of representatives, where we know there are no egos. [laughter] she has been and continues to be a devoted public servant. thank you very much, jane, for everything you do, and for having me this morning. there should not be, there could not become a more appropriate venue for my first speech in washington as the imf managing director. more than anyone else, it was president woodrow wilson who championed the cause of multilateralism and global fraternity. the seeds that he planted took a little bit more time than he thought to actually bear fruit. in the postwar era, he was able
to -- this extraordinary belief that was still the objective of the imf to make sure that corp ation -- a better future for all. this is that the very heart of what the imf, what the institution has to do and keep doing, no matter what circumstances are. the idea has never been more important. this is what i have been advocating for the last few weeks. collective, bold, decisive, courageous action was needed. it will not only be in the interest of those that conduct such actions. it will be for the good of the world. that is a very wilson-approach to economic stability. we are certainly living through a very troubled time at the moment. exactly three years ago, after
the collapse of lehman brothers, the economic skies looked troubled, turbulent, as global activity slowed and downside risk increased. we went into a dangerous phase of the crisis. without the collective resolve that president wilson advocated, the confidence that the world so badly needs, will not return. as we all know, at the heart of economic development, at the heart of growth, lies confidence. confidence in ourselves, confidence in what others can do, as well. woodrow wilson once cautioned, "the thing to do is to supply a light and not heat." i believe that the imf's job is to see and show the light.
and shined a light on poorer, economic problems. it does not hurt to turn on a little bit of the heat, even though you take the hit back. with that in mind, let me offer the following. despite the nature we have at the moment, i believe there's a path to recovery. it is a narrow one and it is certainly narrower than it was three years ago. the volume and the amount of munition is different, lower. there is a path. it will require strong political will across the world, not just in one country, but in many countries. it will require decisive action on the parts of central banks, which they seem to be showing to us, including this morning.
it will require leadership over brinksmanship, corp. over competition, actions over reactions. all three components are difficult, because they have to be demonstrated, implemented, by political leaders who may have to put aside politics for a while -- not just their egos, but also their partisan interest. they will have to extend their agenda beyond the next election. let's have a quick look at the global situation as it is. i really apologize for held brief it will be. i want to get into a quick analysis of what the problems are, and more importantly, what kind of solutions there are. if we look at the global economic outlook at the moment, and i'm not going to be specific on numbers because our revised output will be published next week when we will have our
annual shareholders meeting. i will be general and not overly specific. overall, growth is continuing to slow down. the advanced economies are an anemic recovery. the on the line for republicans- area the euro-area of debt crisis is strengthening. there's a risk of major economies slipping back instead of moving forward. while many advanced economies are facing those headwinds, many emerging markets are facing the risk of overheating with inflation, inflation pressure, and rising and balanced. as we now turn to the low income countries, they have experienced more reasonable growth, but they remained highly
vulnerable to dislocations from elsewhere and the world because of their dependence on other countries. they've suffered from the commodity price volatility. that has an impact on their public finances, as well. many of those countries have to put in place subsidies and grant programs to support the most underprivileged population. this is a bit of an aside and yet it is a big problem. would like to simply draw your attention to the human suffering that is taking place in the horn of africa as a result of the drought. again, aid is available. there are programs in place. for instance, the imf stands ready to help, as well as many other institutions. it's a matter yet again of political determination and the ability to set aside political
ambitions or drive to allow the support to be sent to where it should be. now, this is all very dark and gloomy. i would like to simply, you know, indicate that there is always hope. when i was in the south of france for that meeting that brought together the finance ministers of the g-8 countries and the head of international institutions, and the finance ministers of tunisia, egypt, libya, jordan, and morocco. there was hope in the room. there was a determination to actually move ahead with the development. put in place a strategy and reach out to those populations and those governments that are determined to take their destiny in the hands. there's a time for developing a
strategy. there's a time for implementing a strategy. my hope is that we will begin -- that we will continue to work together and support those countries. it's not just the political issues. it's an economic issue. it's a matter of developing and. it is demonstrating that market access can help the development of countries that decide to move on and to develop the economies for the good of their population. now, turning to the roots of the problems, or some of the roots, as we analyze them, i see three distinct roots. one, the balance sheet pressures that sap growth at the moment. two, the instability in the poor of the global economic system. 3, social tensions that are a
little bit below the radar screen in corners of the world. i and others, there really popping up. first of all, the key short-term issue in advanced economy is that balance sheet pressures are knocking the wind out of the recovery. iny're still too much debt the system. uncertainty weighs over -- across advanced economies, across europe to households in the united states. weak growth and bonds sheets are -- balance sheets are feeding negatively on each other and holding back investments in job creation. this vicious cycle is gaining momentum. frankly, it has been exacerbated by policy uncertainty and
political lack of resolve and determination. that is for the first part. the second one, which is more of a long-term issue, has to do with the risk of core instability. what we find in our economic studies is that the world is totally interconnected with major conduits of connections generally in the financial system. this is clearly the result of what we have done, the spillover analysis, and the combination of analysis of the economies and the collections between them. there will be a lot more said next week at the time of our annual meeting. in this interconnected world, the economy of one country can reverberate quickly across the globe.
the linkages are key and they have to be addressed. the third issue relates to what i call the social tensions, which is bubbling below the surface -- that we do not necessarily see very well in some advanced economies. look at what is happening in chile, for instance but in less advanced economies, there's clearly social tensions and anger at the surface. that's caused by a number of things. entrenched, high unemployment. this is the case in this country. that is the case in many, many countries. that affects, in particular, the younger generation. there have been discussions of the lost generation. most certainly, we need to do our best to avoid that. with a decay of growth, we run
the risk of a lost generation when it comes to jobs. fiscal austerity that chips away social protections. protection of the unfairness where wall street is treated a little bit better than main street. and the legacies of growth in many countries that predominantly benefited for a period of time. that was true in countries that have decided to take their destinies and enhanced. for the future to operate in for the better of the entire communities and not just the top 10%. in the face of all these problems, what are the solutions? are there solutions. i contend that there are solutions. as i said, implementing the solutions will be a matter of collective drive and political determination and willingness to address candidly the problems.
because i'm a simple mind, i like to start with been able to remember what i preach. to me, those solutions are my four r's. the first r is repair. there's quite a lot of work. and then maintain it. what do i mean by that? before anything else, we must believe some of the balance sheet pressures that risked the recovery. on sovereigns, advanced countries need credible, medium- term plans to stabilise and lower their public debt ratio to gdp. that must come first and foremost. this is a precondition to anything else. the degree at which is done is something that is done on a
country by country analysis. it is a first condition, and yet, consolidating too quickly and heavily exposed to the risk of reducing the little growth that there currently is in our economies. the challenges to navigate between losing credibility and undermining growth. there is a way to do this. credible measures that deliver and anchor savings in the medium term will create space and a very short term for accommodating growth. we need to get out of the vicious circle i was describing earlier on by entering into a virtuous path. that goes through a slow pace of consolidation in the immediate term. some countries, not necessarily all, and a much downloaded
program that in the medium and long-term delivers the savings that will be needed to slow the debt, stabilise it, and reduce it. of course, it will be different on the country by country basis. some have no choice but to cut deficits now. they simply do not have the luxury of creating this path, which begins lowe and finishes high. they just have to cut, because they are under such market pressure that there are no options but to do that. others should stick to their adjustment plan. many advanced economies have put together those plans. they have to stick to the plan, but they have to be very, very attentive to the pace of growth at the moment, and be prepared to relax a little bit and to let the economic stabilizers work. in some countries, they have the space to virtually allow for those growth-conducive measures
in the short run, provided -- that was critically important -- provided there is thereanchored way of reducing the deficit and stabilizing the debt to reduce it in the long run. it is not, by the way, what kind of adjustment there is. it is also how the adjustment is produced. both in relation to the allowing of the growth space and allowing this more virtuous approach to public finances, the "how" is critically important. goes through entitlement reform. it goes through the kind of tax reforms that broadens the base. it needs to happen in all advanced economies. is happening in some. there are many countries in europe, for example, who have
completely revise their pension systems so the entitlements are stabilized and the medium and long term. policy makers should also deal, not just with sovereign, but they should also deal with household and bank balance sheets. incidently, in light of the job crisis in the united states, i certainly welcome president obama's recent proposal to address growth and unemployment. at the same time, it remains critical that this be associated with the parallel truck that indicates an anchor's those immediate term actions that are needed to stabilize the debt. equally, in this country in particular, it will be important to consider relieving
overburdened households through actions like helping homeowners that should be able to take advantage of lower interest rates. turning to europe, the sovereigns must firmly address their financing problems through fiscal consolidation. it goes without saying. and to support growth. with the risks lurking in the background, it is important banks be able to strengthen their capital with a view to avoiding the deleveraging. that is so much for repair, having looked at sovran, households, banks, and the balance sheet perspectives. if we look now at the second r, reform. reform is about the longer-term. the repair was the immediate
action that needs to be taken, followed by proper maintenance. it's one thing to prepare, but you have to keep maintaining what the repair has produced. reform is about the much longer term and its about the foundations for a more economic stable condition tomorrow. in that section of reform, i see two critical areas that need attention. the first one is the financial sector reform. there is some good news in that category. on the plus side, some will find long discussions about capital ratios, liquidity ratios, the stability of financial institutions. i would called sue your attention that although it has lasted a little over two years, it's been a lot faster than what's taken place in the previous discussions in basel.
the capital ratios, liquidity ratios, and overall environment of banks -- that has taken a lot less in this basel 3 phase, and it is very good. substantial gaps remain in areas like supervision, and especially cross border supervision in regards to international banking institutions. cross border resolutions, which is still to be tackled on a global basis, and with proper national and regional ramifications. the too important to fail issue and the development of the chateau banking system. in the last three years, some progress has been made, but not enough to be able to say in the face of the depositors, the people who put their savings and those institutions, "we have done the job," i think it's a
question that needs to be addressed urgently. we also need to fine-tune macro tools to guard against financial risk. i'm thinking about policies like having banks hold more capital in good times, so they do have those capital buffers. or implementing maximum loan-to- value ratios to guard against housing bubbles, for instance. progress has been made. there's no doubt about it. it needs to be reinforced. it needs to be level. we need, institutions need, and the general interest need as little regulatory arbitrage as possible. under reform, i would also include the social dimension. unemployment must be central. is that the core.
the economy grows. if jobs are not created -- not a waste, but an extensive human waste. the young people face this lost generation system that we should by all means try to avoid. the third r is rebalancing. one might argue this is a general principle and not an immediate concern. i would argue that it is a critical point. what i mean by rebalancing, this dual rebalancing that needs to take place, when we move from public support to private investment. that hasn't really taken place yet. the second rerebalancing is
this rebalancing where the deficit economies act very differently and the service economies operate very difficuldifferently. in some countries, the rebalancing is held back by excessive protective regulation or the lack of appreciation of the exchange rate. it's a question for those countries, put simply, that have massive deficit, to be able to operate differently, to save more. for those countries that have a massive surplus, to consume a bit more domestically, and not just by massive infrastructure projects, but by domestic consumption. by that and, letting appreciation happen when it comes to currency is very important. this lack of rebalancing hurts everyone.
the thought that one country or a set of countries, because they are emerging, for instance, could be decoupled from the rest of the world is a total illusion. the advanced economy were to come to recession, the emerging markets would not escape. when you are a big supplier of goods, a unique plants around the planet. it is as simple and basic as that. rebalancing is in the global interest. it's also in the interest of each and every economy of each and every country. i think woodrow wilson would have appreciated that, jane. that would have been in his mantra. my fourth and final r is rebuild. i'm thinking of the four countries. they have buffers for many of them, but they had to use them
at the time of the financial crisis and in the last three years. the has to be some rebuilding, so they can protect themselves against future storms. this will also help provide the space for public investment and social safety nets. for example, allowing countries to deploy well targeted subsidies to protect the poor from price swings with minimal damage to sustainability. having gone through my four r's, i cannot resist mentioning a fifth one. i did say that was my last one, but i will indulge. that is the role of the imf. what is the role of the imf in all of this? it is a critical role. it is a critical role, because, one, we can help countries appropriate national, regional, and global surveillance but i
have been a minister of finance. i have been a minister of trade. there things you do not see for yourself because you are right in the middle of it. you do not necessarily have the distance to analyze exactly the strength and weaknesses of your economy. that is the work of surveying how things worked, how the interconnect, what is the spillover effect of decisions made in one country and how will they affect another? with a degree of impartiality and academic skills and tolerance that is required, and that i was very likely to find. two, we have the ability to provide the level of technical assistance that will actually help countries. i'm thinking, for instance, of the countries in the middle east and north africa, to build their public finance sectors, to build a proper fiscal system, to develop a tax system, to organize the collection of taxes, to build a monetary institution.
we can do that in many corners of the world. in many corners of the world, we do. they will continue to be the recipient of support. finally, the third r is our lending capacity and the ability to loan, and to situations where there's nobody else but the fund that can come support by way of lending. not by way of subsidies, not just dumping money without consideration, but under programs that are well- established with appropriate conditionality is. let me say, because everybody has a pitch. i have mine and i would like to share it with you. let me say that the international monetary fund is actually critical for the world, but also the united states of america. i know in hard times there is a tendency to trim around the
edges and to think that is not really critical. mission critical is something else. three points. first of all, the international monetary fund is a disciplined, organized, and i hope well- managed -- but that will have to be demonstrated, and i will have to do my best for that institution. when -- i was intimidated as a lawyer by background to operate with economists, 2500 of them, more or less, i was a little bit until i came to the fund and i realized how disciplined, organized, rule-based it is, and how the principles actually matter over the arbitrary decisions and the discretion of doing as we please. it is an institutional -- is an institution where the main
shareholder is the united states of america, and the defacto right on all decisions. that is reason number one. number two, because i have heard that, why should we invest our money. it might be a waste. any dollar, any euro that is invested in the fund, goes back to the member. 187 members, they all get their money back, principal and interest. we are not in the business of subsidies, giving grants. we land, and we lend under very strict tons -- a very strict terms, the conditionality of our programs. we come to the country, those are the missions that are on the ground, and they checked at the conditionality is respected,
that there is consideration for the special support being given. if it is not the case, money is not paid until there is completion of the commitments that were made. the third reason why the international monetary fund actually matters is that for the largest economic power in the world, the united states of america, it is actually very important that there is stability around the world, that there is stability in all corners and that the international monetary system is without excessive volatility. certainty is a key to fuel confidence. confidence is a key to develop growth, growth is key to developing jobs. that is why the international monetary fund is legitimate in being accountable to all its members, for the money it receives, that it plans, and the money it pays back to its members. thank you very much for giving
me the chance to speak. [applause] >> i want to thank, on behalf of the woodrow wilson international center for scholars, and on behalf of a very sophisticated and interested audience, i want to thank director lagarde. she said last weekend at the g8 meeting in france, there was hope in the room. i would observe there is hope in this room, under the disciplined and organized management of christine lagarde that the imf will solve some of these problems. now, we do have -- that is why i came up on the stage. we have 17 minutes for questions, and the q&a session will be moderated by david l
eonhart, the washington bureau chief. he was part of a team of times reporters covering corporate scandals. he won an award for magazine writing in 2009 for the article "obamanomics." for his "new york times" column in 2007 and 2009. he won a prize this year. congratulations. and this year also he was appointed chief of the washington bureau of "the times." we have microphones around the room. after he speaks and asks director lagarde if you questions -- we are asking you
to formulate your question and identify yourself before you are answered. it will be answered in a concise and precise fashion so we can accommodate as many of you as possible. please welcome david. >> thank you. as the director said, i have not been in vogue. before we go to questions, let me ask you one. you include some very stark talk. can you expand on it a little bit? what do you see as the things that, as a global economic system we have not done as well as we might have over the last two or three years, or you pick the time frame, and responding to this crisis? >> i think if i look at europe, to begin with, because of the
way in which decisions are implemented, and because it is based on 17 parliamentary processes, we have not signaled sufficiently well for the markets in particular the degree of consolidation, fiscal respectability, accountability, the european numbers, particularly those the euro zone is prepared to take. it has been a slow process which was directionally right but to slow ended little bit behind the curve, impressed upon the markets that the european players in this monetary zone were prepared to shoulder the pain together. that is one example. the second example i think in many corners, austerity has been decided shortly after the stimulus packages were put in place and expanded.
in too harsh a way and without distinguishing between the short-term gains and the long term loss of having really not, you know, killing growth, but reduced its possibility to expand. moving very brutally from the financial crisis, the stimulus, the austerity, without letting growth take hold, i think that could have been better. >> and this country? >> there are many volatile economies. >> thank you. yes?
>> it seems as if you're saying that the actions are a little knee-jerk. are you implying that our political and economic leaderships are incompetent? [laughter] >> no no, this is not what i'm saying. i'm saying the times at the moment are such that it requires the kind of collective drive that i witnessed in early 2009, at the time of the g20 meetings. there was at the time the sense of urgency, the sense of collective site and destiny. in the ability of leaders to be
a little bit nimble and ambitious. but to do it together. that is the 1944 spirit as well. i contend this is what we need at the moment. i'm certain political leaders are capable of that. i was very reassured to listen to the feedback and the statements resulting from the conversation that president sarkozy and chancellor merkel had with president pop and drove from greece -- papandreu from greece. i strongly hope that it will be that sort of collective drive, and the sense shared by all that whatever happens anywhere on the globe is going to have an impact back at home. >> your saying that reminds me that people often ask if we have
learned historical lessons from the depression. initially we did, that use -- focusing on the bush administration in its final months -- he also saw it around the world, and the crisis right and left around the world that affect the government -- sometimes it affects both when it changes -- to some extent overwhelm the economic lessons and our response became less aggressive. do you think that is fair? >> i would agree with that. there was very strong momentum coming out of the crisis, and i remembered vividly the g20 washington meeting under president george w. bush, and then the next one under the new leadership in this country in london. there was a very strong momentum at the time. there were unbelievable
decisions, number one, to tackle the regulatory issues when it came to the financial sector, to provide for massive financing to the imf, to make a statement that there was financial support around the globe for those countries. and that has slowed down and and sort of overtaken by the fact that the economy was sneaking up. in this as usual -- business as usual could recover. >> and there is something unpalatable about the crisis measures that you have to take. >> yes. >> do you believe there are adequate systems in place? >> i will rephrase it. >> do you believe there are
adequate systems in place for proper accountability of the bretton woods institutions, and if not, what needs to be done? >> i cannot talk for the bretton woods institutions because the only one i know is the international monetary fund. but if i look at the way it is structured, the way in which twice a year we report back to our membership, we have open books when it comes to the degree of accountability that you refer to. we are a structured program that we cannot deviate from. we have ourselves conditions of operations that are quite strict, and sometimes overly strict, which is a bit of an issue. i think there is, in terms of ability to report and be accountable to membership -- it is not as if it was an organization that can operate without rules, without
conditions, and without reporting back to the membership. >> thank you very much. welcome to washington. thank you for your remarks. you may have noticed today in "washington post," a bold proposal that the imf would seek $750 million line of credit -- $750 billion line of credit, and use it to bail out europe, where the imf is highly regarded. you suggested there would be in texture -- an insurance that there would be a non-chinese head of the imf. if you would like to comment on that, i would be delighted. i tell that really to get your thoughtful response on the imbalances we see that go to the legitimacy of the imf, where the debtor countries continue to call the shots and the creditor
countries are relatively in the minority position. and ask if you have plans for addressing that during your term in terms of the governance of the imf itself. >> i look at it that way. i look at the membership. there are proper economic classifications between advanced economies, emerging economies, and low-income countries. at the moment, there is no doubt the advanced countries have the voting rights. i do not know what you're referring to as the creditors and the beneficiaries. there is clearly a drive by the emerging markets in particular, but more generally by the less represented countries to be better represented. it is an ongoing debate within the fund, not really one that i cherish myself because the real
value of the fund is to be outward looking rather than inward looking, but it helps to also be in would looking because it helps to reflect the state of the world. it is very likely, given the trends we see at the moment, that the less represented countries that include the emerging markets will be more represented in the future because it is only fair that, given the rise of gdp, given the size of the country and the economy, they be adequately represented. how you base that on -- whether it is pure gdp or more sophisticated way of measuring, there will be a huge debate about that because it is an open question. but i think that, you know -- one of the virtues of the fund is that it is properly representing the entire global constitution of the world.
it cannot be dominated by the founding fathers, for instance. to be accepted in all corners of the world, including for its lending capacity -- i am thinking asia. >> we leave this program and go live to canada for a question and answer period with canadian prime minister stephen harper. questions to his cabinet about deficit reduction and legislation. this is live via cpac. >> and from 1957 to 1970. it was a -- he was a master at building birch bark canoes. he traveled around the world on behalf of his people. many distinctions of awards. the national aboriginal achievement award.
we would like to express our condolences to his family and all those who knew him. may he rest in peace. [applause] >> mr. speaker, canadians gave are inserted government a mandate to stay focused on what matters, helping to create jobs and promote economic growth. canada's economy has greeted 600,000 new jobs in july. the august job growth record. kennedy -- the canadian economy will be the strongest in the g- 7. due to our economic resiliency, financial strength, and low susceptibility. the global economic recovery is
fragile, and the last thing canada's economy needs now is the massive job killing tax hikes. stay with our low-tax plan will support canada's economic recovery. >> the honorable leader of the opposition. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is still wearing his road coat -- rose-colored classes -- glasses when he looks at the economy. we are told we are on the brink of another recession. investments are down, and the governments solution is to cut services. when will the prime minister
take action in order to create jobs and prevent another economic crisis? mr. speaker, first of all, i would like to congratulate the members for the first question as a leader of the opposition. mr. speaker, the government's position is clear. our concern is the economy. we are part of a fragile global economy, and that is a message i have repeated on several occasions over the past year. we need to continue to focus on job creation, using measures for research and development among other things. mr. speaker. >> the honorable leader of the opposition. >> our economy shed over 5000
more jobs. because of the lack of job opportunities, to reach the same proportion work before the recession, we need to create 420,000 new jobs. canada needs a job strategy now. where is the jobs plan? >> hear, hear. >> i would like her to get her facts straight. there are more people working in canada today than before the recession. [applause] this government remains focused on jobs, making targeted investments in the economy in things like research and innovation, keeping taxes low, opening trade markets, and of course making sure that we do not see the kind of deficits in canada that have caused the
global recession throughout the world. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister has created a structural deficit by giving reductions in income taxes paid by large corporations, contrary to what he is saying. companies are not invested, they are not creating jobs. this is some $500 billion being set aside that is not used to create jobs. the government's strategy is not working. where are the investments? where are the jobs? >> mr. speaker, there are more canadians working today than prior to the global recession. and canada is almost the only industrialized country to be in the situation. that is why we have focused on
keeping taxes low, not just for corporations but also for individuals and families. mr. speaker, government fully understand that the -- fully understands the situation. we will not create jobs by increasing taxes. >> we will look technology in the face. the prime minister needs to look at the situation as it is. there is an increase in unemployment. money is being wasted on large corporations and tax cuts. when will the government put an end to that and put in place a real job creation strategy? >> i certainly do with my colleagues in the g7 regularly. we have a serious situation in europe. the plain fact is we are among the advanced economies in the world.
we have almost 600,000 net new jobs since the recession ended, and more than that, mr. speaker, 80% of those jobs are full-time jobs for canadians. the job record is second to none. >> order. >> mr. speaker, what the conservatives have created is the largest deficit in canadian history. that has just fallen short of job creation. corporate tax giveaways has failed canadians. another 420,000 jobs would have to be created just to keep the same proportion of jobs we had before the 2008 recession. why won't the finance minister stop these reckless corporate
giveaways? why won't he target support for the real job creators? who the jobnow creators are other than small businesses in canada who pay taxes. to create jobs, to -- it is the small businesses, which is why we have a higher hiring credit for small businesses. as i say, our record with respect to job creation is among the best in the developed economies. we have to keep working at it, but the way to get there is not to have a $10 billion tax increase on business, which is what the opposition has suggested. >> mr. speaker, through all the rhetoric, a few facts that i think canadians will all understand.
1.4 million people officially unemployed, many hundreds of thousands of others have been discouraged from working. the second fact is that the economy right now it is clearly not growing. these are undeniable fact. last year the government produced an economic statement on october 12. can the prime minister commit that he will produce an economic statement that will deal directly with the jobs crisis again? >> the honorable prime minister. >> we just had an election were the government made very clear that it will continue with its priorities on the economy, its priorities to create job growth, and, mr. speaker, obviously we have a fundamental difference with all stripes. we understand you cannot create jobs by raising taxes, so we will keep them low in this country as part of our job creation strategy.
>> mr. speaker, the prime minister is refusing to acknowledge and recognize that the economy is not the same as it was back in june the economy has contracted here in canada, in the united states, and in europe. i will ask the prime minister, will he commit today to holding a clear statement, to having the minister of finance make an economic statement prior to october 12? >> mr. speaker, our economic policy is very clear. mr. speaker, i reiterated that that of the global economy, the global recovery is very fragile. clearly, there are risks due to that. the government will take
responsible action. we cannot, however, create jobs through the level of debt as we are seeing in the united states. no, this has led to huge problems in the global economy. we do not want to have problems like that here. >> the government the to the other day the fact that the deals on the perimeter security deal has been aged between the united states and canada. we have now just learned that president obama's plan, the reinvestment in the united states, includes several buy america provisions which will cause canada tens of thousands of jobs. i would like to ask the prime minister, how can this government possibly have signed any kind or come to any kind of agreement with respect to perimeter security and at the same time allow the administration of the united states to carry on direct discrimination against our country?
>> honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, if i have inked a deal with the united states, certainly i do not remember doing it. this is an important initiative, mr. speaker, aimed to sustain not just our security but obviously our access to the american market on which so many canadian jobs are based. the minister of trade has been strong as saying that we do not support protectionist measures. we have opposed those in the past and we will continue to do so. we are the only party that has an unadulterated record of commitment to free trade. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
it was the auditor general exposed the liberal sponsorships scheme. i have several questions for the president and treasury board. has any were cracked, staffer, or ministers, tended to keep the general in the dark or mislead her about spending around the g8? wouldn't the minister agree that that would constitute a very serious breach of public trust? >> mr. speaker, a year we have once again a member of the democratic party, the same old, same old. let me tell you this very directly. these types of attacks in the last election, they voted for a government of job creation. that is exactly what this is. >> mr. speaker, with the auditor general then try to investigate the $50 million in pork-barrel spending? they are unable to find a paper trail because the auditor general was not told that the
parts were run through the constituency office. it was ndp researchers with the help of capital that broke the code of silence. i would like to ask the members, who directed these bureaucrats to keep silent, and who told them to give such disrespect to the canadian taxpayer? >> i would say to my colleague there is nothing new here. what i can say is that the infrastructure of canada, there are 32 different agreements for each project. all of the projects are finished on time. every dollar was accounted for. we appreciate the good advice, a way to be even more transparent and do things better. thank you very much, mr. speaker. >> mr. speaker, we know that the
deputy minister reports to the auditor general. the minister of foreign affairs says he was not involved in funding, but today we know this is false. a senior deputy minister -- will the minister of foreign affairs -- to hide their involvement in these funds? >> the honorable minister of foreign affairs. .> no, mr. speaker thank you, mr. speaker. during the election campaign of 20,02008, the minister of the treasury board presided over a mobile leadership group. this group was one that would be sending considerable amounts of money in. can the minister explain how he
found this to be normal, presiding over this group during an election campaign? the minister of foreign affairs. >> mr. speaker, same old, same old here. we came forward with significant recommendations on how we could be more transparent, specific ruminations on -- the good news is 32 construction projects came in on or under budget. and they will be for many years to come. >> mr. speaker, the ministers signed off on inaccurate statements about their involvement. the minister went ahead with these less fund meetings in the middle of an election campaign. funding out of back rooms, your
office is not ethical government. the minister finally apologize to canadians look -- will the minister finally apologize to canadians for this breach of the trust? >> in 35 seconds i cannot possibly explain every inaccuracies in that question. 32 infrastructure products, all 32 are public. they all came in on or under budget. >> mr. speaker, the president of the treasury board cost $15 million spending -- they asked mayors from the region for criteria necessary on funding. they ask a mayor to set criteria for funding they would be receiving. will the minister clarify the situation with respect to his involvement in the management of
this slush fund? >> the honorable minister of foreign affairs. >> mr. speaker, we were coast to coast providing infrastructure in every province and territory from coast to coast to coast. the good news is because of the infrastructure projects, we saw economic growth, more jobs, or opportunity. that is why canada is leading the world in the g7, that is why we of the strongest in industrialization. that is why the minister of finance was named the best minister of finance last year. >> mr. speaker, conservative ministers are developing quite a passion for the use of high- flying government jets. the ministers of finance and defense make liberal use of these jets. the prime minister says that everything is fine because he
has the paltry quote and -- paltry equivalent of the commercial airline ticket. >> mr. speaker, just to throw a few facts into the mix -- prime minister and all ministers require that -- the government aircraft being used when commercial aircraft is not available. let me remind you that when it comes to liberal use of this aircraft, the conservative government has reduced the average annual spending of the minister challenger by approximately 80%. looking good. >> mr. speaker, it is clear the conservative -- few canadians and travel to boston to see a hockey game.
for some ministers, using this jet transportation went up 50%. we would like -- could it be justified that the government have a better excuse than saying that the liberals did worse? the honorable minister. >> there they go, mr. speaker, making things up. the reality is the jets are used for government business, used when commercial flights are not available. we have reduced the amount of time the jets are being used, and they are used in fact for a very important purpose, for medevacs. these are aircraft that were purchased in the 1980's. these aircraft are part of a fleet of aircraft owned and operated by the government, but operated under the auspices under the canadian forces.
>> mr. speaker, the cost of the taxpayer funded trips to events like football games, hockey games, and the calgary stampede, have shocked canadians. the government is planning significant cuts to the canadian forces. >> mr. speaker, will this canadian austerity plan only apply to sailors, soldiers? why was $1 million a flight proved to be taken by the chief of defense staff? -- approved to be taken by the chief of defense staff? >> the minister of defense is operating under the rules of the -- he understands with expectations are, and certainly is prepared to live with those, live according to those rules. the chief of defense staff does fly frequently on government business, but obviously where there are alternatives, we will look into that usage.
>> the fact is 1.4 million canadians are out of work, more than three years ago. that does not include the canadian to have given up looking for work altogether. with so many canadians out of work, will leave and as minister use the opportunity of the economic statement to introduce a real plan to create and save canadian jobs? >> the honorable minister of finance. >> mr. speaker, i hope the member of the party will support the budget members that include the tax credit for business in canada. that will give 525,000 small businesses an opportunity to hire more people. in canada, that as important as we put a limit on the rate of increase of unemployment insurance, payments by employers. our tax reductions continue
beyond originally in 2007. that helped create jobs, and we have continuing infrastructure programs. there is lots of government activity in the economy today, and that is why we have 400,000 net jobs. >> make it clear that farmers want the canadian wheat board to stay. "while farmers have spoken, we recognize that at this time and place, this is what farmers are asking for, and we will certainly work to make sure that the board delivers for them in the best way possible." do you know who said that mr. speaker? the minister of agriculture. the law is clear, and farmers have spoken again. why dozens he honor the will of farmers? keep the wheat board. >> the honorable minister of agriculture. >> farmers always love to hear
someone from ontario. let me quote the director. it is a glorified survey. we have admitted it is non- binding, mr. speaker. we accept that. >> mr. speaker, i am from this area. manitoba, alberta had indeed spoken. they have voted to retain the wheat board, and i implore the prime minister, why will he stand up for the prairie farmers and guarantee that we will have a wheat board well into the future? >> order. the honorable prime minister. >> mr. speaker, first call, it is interesting to have a question from a member who does not have a single farmer in his
riding. let's talk about the fact. not only was there is significant vote against the wheat board, it did not include the tens of thousands of farmers who have walked away from that institution. the wheat board gets to pick its own voters, and i guess they do that over there, the winning -- the liberal party could even win an election. the fact of the matter is, let the farmers vote for market freedom, that is what they're going to get. >> order. >> the government is planning to spend billions more on corporate tax giveaways. it cannot find money to help address the crisis of crumbling infrastructure. just this summer, montreal was shocked when a section of
highway 127 collapsed. luckily, no one was injured. canadians are at risk, so why is the government now cutting back on infrastructure spending? and i never in the history of the country -- was not here, but his party voted against it. >> cutting infrastructure spending. the government must stop avoiding facing responsibilities and must take the measures necessary to help greater montreal. we cannot expect to modernize montreal because this is the
economic future. the city that we're talking about here. where the government seizes the opportunity -- to car sharing and public transit. the minister of transport. >> mr. speaker, the thing that is very important our country, respecting jurisdiction, my colleague must know that in quebec each decision to invest in infrastructure is the responsibility of the government except for the three bridges between the provinces. when it comes time to invest in infrastructure, we do so for the municipalities and the priorities as we do in all provinces of this country. >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, the government prosperity is the economy, and it should prove it. infrastructure problems in greater montreal have major economic consequences. the champlain bridge has reached
the end of its life span. the government has to look for excuses not to replace it. mr. speaker, will the government assume its responsibilities to protect the economy? it is a national issue. will it enact the building of a new bridge? the honorable minister of transport. >> mr. speaker, we have invested in montreal bridges, including champlain bridge. we have invested more than $315 million in order to ensure that we make these installations safer. the party opposite mostly voted against it, so it is interesting to hear what they have to say today. >> mr. speaker, we now know that the people taking the bridge were running real risks even before the bridge was closed this summer. it is an economic issue, but it
is also one of public safety. the safety of drivers, truckers come and those who use public transit. will the government take the measures that must be taken now? the honorable minister of transport. >> mr. speaker, the subtle part of the bridge, because we have to really understand what the situation is. there were investments of $137 million, ongoing for several years. the government of quebec has continued to do its job and does work. we talk about the provincial share of the bridge, and the federal bridges in the montreal region are in good shape for the people. we make sure of that. >> thank you mr. speaker. i question relates to the series and on during issue of anti- semitism in the in-the committee.
-- in the community. my question to the minister of citizenship and immigration is the following. could he advise as to any other action the government is taking? >> good question. >> first public to think the member from mount royal, and the member from davenport, for their leadership and the parliamentary coalition. as well as helping us to coordinate the parliamentarians here in january, which led to the ottawa particle -- on behalf of canada, be the first government in the world to -- that canada will take a leadership role in combating all forms of anti-semitism, including the surge of the new
antisemitism, which seeks to target and vilify the collective state of israel. we stand in solidarity with the jewish people of their democratic state. >> mr. speaker, there is no business case for abolishing the canadian wheat board. it is clean and simple. the majority of grain producers have voted to keep the monopoly of the wheat board. i argue that the minister is both a duty bound and honor bound to uphold the democratic will of prairie grain producers as a respect of the very act that defines this ministry, which guarantees grain producers before the government interferes with their ability to market their grain. >> mr. speaker, a glaring hole
was left out in the middle. that is what we campaigned on. give us the authority to move forward on that. give those farmers the right and the opportunity to market their commodities at a time and place that they see fit. >> mr. speaker, our american neighbors certainly see the benefit because 13 times they have gone to the wto to complain that it is an unfair competitive advantage. now our minister of agriculture is going to do america's dirty work for them. my question is simple. who are you, mr. speaker? what side are you on? why are you not standing up for canadian grain producers who are for the canadian wheat board?
>> the honorable minister of agriculture. >> mr. speaker, let me quote one of the farmers from western canada. "manitoba and saskatchewan have no plan. entrepreneurs need to be given the chance to buy grain freely from farmers. we saw the australian marble opening up some three years ago. but i never see it. he said the only mistake that was made was not doing it sooner. we look at that as very positive for the farmers. we know they will -- we know the former investors of canada will follow the same model. and that mr. speaker, the parliamentary secretary. it is a very important position which requires professionalism and discretion. recent events have become a distraction.
there are unanswered questions about the parliamentary secretary's judgment and potential security concerns. my question is, will the parliamentary secretary step aside from his responsibility until the situation will be investigated? hasr. speaker, the member denied any inappropriate behavior, and we have found no information to suggest otherwise. >> mr. speaker, really, foreign affairs must be treated with more seriousness, a great deal more. the minister of foreign affairs is taking care of the pictures and the foreign minister is looking after his affairs.
who is looking after the affairs of the -- he has nothing to answer for. does the opposition in the house have a call for the report that was produced as a result? thank you. >> mr. speaker, i am not entirely sure what this has to do with government business, and i do not know what people's personal life has to do with the new tone of decorum. there is no information to suggest otherwise. >> the honorable member. >> mr. speaker, the minister of industry, the hsd harmonization in quebec would be the 15th. it is now the 19th. they voted on the new -- there is no funding for the overpass and we are still waiting for a new champlain bridge. why have they stopped quebec,
because quebec citizens did not vote the right way? why have they dropped. mr. speaker, i think the question should be turned back to -- nothing happened over 10 years. there was no fiscal imbalance. they deny that there was a hard time harmonization. that resulted in the fiscal imbalance they created, and we recognize that quebec as a nation once more. we have done more than they have in the previous government. >> mr. speaker, canadians fail to understand how the funds allocated by parliament to improve the border infrastructure were used to build gazebos and washrooms that
had nothing to do, even with the auditor general. -- according to the auditor general. if the conservatives claim to support accountability as they claim they have nothing to hide, will they accept review of the fund by the defending committee operations? and that the honorable minister of foreign affairs. >> you have to do more than that. you have to make several recommendations, beat on the floor to my transparent. we have accepted all those recommendations. i say to the members this is the same type of tactic that was rejected in the last election. they want their government to be focused on jobs, economic growth, and on economic opportunity, and that is exactly what this government will continue to focus on. >> it turns out we need more
time to consult with the oil industry. will the minister explain to me why he has decided to take his time when the government has set -- has sent the message. >> i welcome my colleague's question. we do have a plan, and our plan is working. as my colleague knows full well, we began with a sector-by- sector regulatory approach a year ago. the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases. i have just posted new regulations for the cold fire and of the to the sector. we will proceed sector by sector from here, around priories. >> the honorable member from halifax. >> the government has found
nothing better to do this summer shave is hundred jobs. the department of environment cut for our economy. social development, future power for all of us. this will not be without consequences for canadians, mr. speaker. analysis that the government considers the result of a cut for canadians. >> first of all, mr. speaker, i must correct. the numbers given by my colleague. >> there is a great difference, mr. speaker, between 776 permanent employees who might be affected. 300 positions which will be declared surplus. at the much smaller access of
employees who may have been eventually separate from a department. another of the core services come from us, mr. speaker. the parity remains the key. -- a priority remains the key. >> i want to thank you, mr. speaker. 2011. the unit representing flight attendants served 72 hours notice to strike, a strike that could take place at 12:01 wednesday morning. because air canada plays such a vital role in the canadian economy, could the minister please give the house and update on the status of the labor negotiations at air canada? >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a case like this, the best solution is always the
one that is hard for each one themselves. we have received strength from the numbers, and we are concerned that a disruption of the air service will that canada's economic recovery. a very strong mandate with respect to the economic recovery, they will want us to focus on the economy. we will act professionally in this economy. >> mr. speaker, the conservatives' intend to cut service processing centers that to 22 over the next three years, this government's plan is to shift jobs in the areas of high unemployment and urban areas makes no sense. can the economy remained fragile or the government remains so illogical? jobs we cannot afford to lose. at a time when canadians need
the government most. cuts are being pressed instead of focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs. >> order. >> during the global recession, the numbers of applications for unemployment insurance spiked. so we hired additional workers who were -- we're leading the world and economic job creation, there are outstanding applications for ei. we are honoring our factories, putting them to use. >> the canadian government learn about the cuts to service can do, and what we know is that these jobs are very important terms of beating up the protest
against what the insurance price. there is a continues to be a -- will this minister explain to out-of-work canadians, why are they making it hard as an active program that canadians have paid into. >> here, hear. >> we want to make sure that canadians access the service in which they are title. we get a mandate from canadians able to make sure that -- up until now it is most been done mr. speaker, no service can hit -- we want to make sure that we are responsive to canadians in a responsible way regarding their taxpayer dollars.
[applause] >> mr. speaker, folks were horrified when the heat her family's son was taken from them. he was returned safely. [applause] mr. speaker, our government is committed to keeping our street and communities say. could the minister of justice please inform the folks on how the government is acting to strengthen the system and keep canadians save? [applause] >> i want to thank the honorable member for his interest in this, and we all joined in wishing his family safety. we have taken concrete steps to
protect canada's most vulnerable. strengthening citizens provisions were dangerous offenders. we believe those who commit violent crimes should serve sentences which reflect the severity of their crimes. i am proud to be part of government that puts citizens first picketed canadians know they can count on this government. >> mr. speaker, 10 years ago the government of ontario created waterfront ontario to develop socially and environmentally. the plan is ready for implementation. now the mayor of toronto is seeking to take control of agency and implement his own plan. can the minister of finance confirmed his commitment to waterfront toronto in sticking with its current plan? [applause]
>> not only can i confirm the commitment of the federal government, in fact a commitment was $500 million. about four hundred $92 million of that money has been spent. most of the projects that have gone ahead, including sugar beach, were done primarily with better -- federal money. we supported the waterfront toronto project throughout its time of planning. understand mayor of toronto and waterfront are having some discussions and we expect it will come to an amicable resolution. >> mr. speaker, the leader of the government said this week that he strongly intended to retain the ability to amend the composition of the house of
commons by increasing the number of seats of saying that quebec was trying -- not wanting to see the number of seats godown. >> mr. speaker, each canadian boat, to the greatest extent possible, should carry equal weight. we will be taking reasonable and measured action to restore reasonable implementation in the house of commons. unlike the opposition, we are governing for all canadians and we will pursue what is fair and principled. [applause] i would like to draw the attention of the minister of finance of the legislative assembly. [applause]
>> pursuant to section 28 of the conflict of interest " for members of the house of commons -- >> british prime minister david cameron will address members of the house of commons this coming friday at 5:30 p.m. eastern. we'll have that program for you on the c-span network. >> president obama is calling for $1.50 trillion in new taxes, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. he bowed to veto any deficit reduction package that cuts benefits from medicare recipients but does not raise taxes on the wealthy and big corporations. you can see his comments tonight at 8 eastern and offer your comments about the president of the deficit-reduction plan on- line and on facebook. tonight, why the impact of the proposed merger of at&t and t- mobile on the wireless industry,
on u.s. jobs, and on prices consumers pay for work in services. the communicators, tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. which are the constitution is important to you? that is our question and ensure studentcam competition. make a video 5-8 minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that is important to you, and why. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there is $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000 recount >> homeland security secretary janet napolitano and fbi director robert moeller said that credible and specific terrorist threat that coincided with the 9/11 10th anniversary is ongoing and unresolved. secretary napolitano and fbi
director mullen are joined by matthew golson, newly sworn in counter-terrorism director. >> good morning, everybody. i would like to welcome you to the american constitution society's annual supreme court review. i am caroline fredrickson. i am very glad to see you all here this morning. founded in 2001, acs is one of the nation's leading progressive organizations in a rapidly growing network of lawyers and law students, scholars, judges, policy makers, and other concerned individuals who believe in that compressive -- progressive values of our constitution. as an example of the kind of work acs does, i am pleased to tell you about a project we have started with the national
constitution center based in philadelphia. together we will be putting out a series of video podcasts and supreme court cases that include interviews with litigants who will discuss their experiences bringing their cases before the high court, and scholars who can place those cases in a historical and legal context. our first podcast will be on a case before the court this term, florence versus freeholders of the county of florence, regarding it strip searches of everyone put in jail as constitutional. we will have more information about that series in the near future. the supreme court's october 2011 term has the potential to be a real blockbuster. already on the court's docket or questions about whether the government can place a gps tracking device on a suspect was a car without first obtaining a warrant.
the scope of title seven ministerial exception for religious institutions, and whether the fcc rule on an expletive is unconstitutionally vague. the challenge to arizonas immigration law, sb-1070. potentially the port busy before the court this term are challenges to california's proposition 8 which bans marriage for same-sex couples, and the university of texas' admissions program which allows for the consideration of race among other factors in admissions decisions. we will have to wait and see whether the court decides to pick up these cases, but in the meantime, our palest will discuss the coming term and will highlight for you the cases and the trends that think he should pay attention to.
we had listed tom golston as our moderator today, but he has been called overseas on business. we are honored and that neal has agreed to step in and moderate today's discussion. neil has joined the firm of hogan lovell's as serving -- after serving as solicitor general of the united states. he argued 15 supreme court cases including his successful defense of the constitutionality of the voting rights act. prior to serving there, he was a professor at georgetown university law center where he directed the center on national security and the law and he was one of the august profs to have received tenure in university's history. please join me in welcoming neil. [applause]
>> it is a real delight to be here and to talk about what might be a fantastic supreme court term with a fantastic panel of advocates and scholars. i don't want to waste too much time with introductions, because there are a lot of us on the panel and time is limited. let me just briefly introduce the panel in the order in which they will speak. we will first hear from walter dellinger, a former acting solicitor general. he will be discussing the global positioning satellite case that was just mentioned a moment ago. we will next here from neil kinkoff, who will discuss the case about jerusalem and presidential powers, as well as the arizona immigration case. he is a professor at georgia state and a former official at the office of legal counsel. we will next year from miguel estrada, a former assistant
general who has argued 19 supreme court cases. he will discuss the mail case about patent ability as well as a brief discussion about diverted action position now pending in the court involving the university of texas. i will briefly discussed in my former capacity as a panelist fcc versus box, which is the indecency case, and then we will hear from cynthia jones, who will discuss eyewitness tested -- testimony. she is a professor at american university. last we will hear from cheryl ifill and she will discuss -- the ineffective assistance of counsel cases now pending in the courts. they will each have five minutes, although if any of the palest want to come in and ask questions to the speaker, that time will not count against the speaker.
with that, walter. >> good morning, and thanks for coming. i will be talking about to make cases in which i am involved and i want to begin by late disclosing i am co-counsel for antoine jones in united states versus jones. in the jones case, the police -- federal officials put a gps device on the underside of antoine jones is car without his knowledge or consent and without a valid warrant. they then used the device to attract the movements of the car registered to his wife, driven sometimes by her and sometimes by jones, for the next 30 days, is taking a snapshot every 10 seconds of the location of the car and up loading this
information in forms which could be digitized and searched in various ways. there was a warrant which was conceivably not valid. it was not executed within the district of columbia. the evidence obtained as a result of the location liberation was introduced at his trial on drug charges. he was convicted and appealed. the court of appeals for the district of columbia in an opinion by judge ginsberg held that this was a search that should have required a warrant. the government argues, and first attempted to get a review which the court denied over dissent by judge silberman. the government argued that under the court's precedents,
no warrant is needed, there is no fourth amendment issue raised by this, because it is not a search, not a violation of the fourth amendment because all the information that was introduced at trial could be observed from public thoroughfares. the court relied upon an earlier case, or the government relied upon an earlier case from the 1980's were the government placed of beeper in a container with the permission of the owner of the container. the beeper was placed in a container, and the container was taken by the suspect and they used the beeper to follow the car. the court held in that case that no warrant was required, because it simply aided monitoring of a public street, and there is no expectation of privacy when you are on a public thoroughfare.
the argument that this was much more extensive than that, because it involved a 30 days' worth of data taken every 10 seconds, did not persuade judge silberman, who said an infinite number of infants times zero is zero. the fact that you are observe every 10 seconds make no difference. the government petitioned the supreme court and the circuits have taken a variety of different positions on this question. part of the issue is going to be is the gps device any different from a beeper. a beeper is good for a few hundred yards and it ate the actual visual tracking, so you have to have a human actually doing it. in one sense, the gps device is actually seizing the information itself.
when we opposed the grant of certiorari we added an additional second question. we said that if the court were to grant cert, it ought to grant on the second issue as well. by the act of attaching the gps tracking device to his vehicle without his consent, that is a separate property based interest. did they sees his vehicle and then use it as a transmitting begin device against him, and should the result in a trigger exclusion, the fruit of the poison tree? one of the arguments is, you may understand that you are never can observe you on a public street when you leave the house. what you cannot expect is that your neighbor will attach a gps device under your car and used three satellites to track your every movement.
in that sense, i will close the discussion by saying in the effort to show how different this technology is from the use of a beeper or the use of binoculars are whatever, a work in progress brief will be submitted. in 1978, the u.s. department state lost the navigational satellite timing and global positioning system for use with the u.s. military. it operates 25 government-owned satellites orbiting the earth, each of which continually transmits the position of every satellite in the system. the receiver on a gps device listens to the transmissions of the forecloses satellites and determines the precise location on earth. the device provides an accurate, continuous, and three dimensional digital record over any given period of time as well as that of any person or object carrying the device.
the date is communicated to a remote computer and translated onto an interactive map and generates a record of activities. it will produce a pattern of vocational information and movement for every moment in that period. which of these things is not like the others? >> in the interest of keeping the discussion moving, i'll ask you to step in a little later in the conversation. >> i like to spend most of my time discussing the clinton case. people are pretty familiar with sb-1070 and not so much with mbz, which is potentially a very important case. 2002, congress enacted the foreign relations appropriation act and included in that the -- authorization act, and included
section 214, which is titled u.s. policy with respect to jerusalem as the capital of israel. one component of section 214 directs that the secretary of state list on passports and other records listing a place of birth for u.s. citizens born in jerusalem, that they listed as having been born in israel if the secretary is requested to do so. in october 2002, a man was born to u.s. citizen parents in jerusalem. because he was born abroad to u.s. citizens, he is a u.s. citizen by statute. his parents went to the u.s. embassy in tel aviv and asked
that his certificate of record of birth a broad list his place of birth as jerusalem, israel. when president bush signed the foreign relations authorization act, he included a signing statement saying that section 214 is unconstitutional, because it infringes his authority to speak as the sole voice of the united states in international relations and it violates his authority -- his recognition authority under the constitution. the state department refused to list israel on his birth certificate. they listed only jerusalem. menachem parents filed a lawsuit in the district of columbia. the district court dismissed the lawsuit on grounds that it presented a political question that the court cannot answer. the d.c. circuit's firmed on
political question grounds two judges ruled that it was a political question even though their resolve the case on merit. a third judge, judge edwards, issued a concurring opinion in which he said the case does not present a political question, but agreed that the case should be dismissed because the statute violates the president's recognition power. toachem's parents appealed the supreme court and the supreme court granted cert. masoud cert on the grounds a case does not present a political question. they directed the parties to prevent additional question. the section 214 violate the president's authority under the constitution to recognize foreign powers? the recognition power, which i think is really what this case
is about, there is not a very plausible argument that this case involves a political question. i think the best argument for that is the fact that the d.c. circuit actually addressed the merits before it said it was a political question. the case really involves the recognition power. the recognition power is not specifically granted in the constitution. instead, the constitution authorizes the president to receive ambassadors. but everyone understands that role is premised on the president's authority to recognize which ambassador is the real ambassador or. if two ambassadors from a foreign country say i am the ambassador, presumably each representing a competing faction, it is for the president to decide which ambassador to recede, and in doing so, to determine what is the legitimate government of the foreign nation. but the recognition power does not stop there. it is generally understood to
authorize the president to determine what territory the foreign nation includes. are the bachmann islands part of argentina or part of great britain, for example. -- the falkland islands. or is jerusalem part of israel or a disputed territory as to which we take no position as to who is sovereign. the recognition power also has been understood to grant the president the authority to make policy as to how to go about recognizing or withholding recognition from a foreign governments, or art as to a foreign government's sovereignty over a particular bit of territory. that part is not controversial. what is controversial is the question of whether or not that power is granted exclusively to the president's. there seems to be fairly broad agreement that in fact that power is exclusive to the
president. there is a long body of precedent within the executive branch that makes the claim of exclusivity. there are a range of court opinions saying that the president has this authority exclusively, in which case it seems like a fairly simple and straightforward question. the president has the recognition power. congress has infringed on the recognition power. the problem is, congress also has relevant authority. congress has authority over naturalization. it is congress that determines that a person born abroad to u.s. citizen parents is a citizen of the united states under its naturalization power. it is congress that has the power to decide what kind of documentation is necessary and that the government should issue to recognize that fact. so congress has exercised that authority to say that u.s. citizens born in jerusalem are born in jerusalem, israel.
so we have sort of a conflict of power. i think this case is going to raise a real important characteristic of the supreme court. that is, the supreme court is populated to an extent that i think it's unprecedented by lawyers to have as their background arguing separation of powers issues on the side of the president. we have new justice kagan who was for years and the white house counsel's office. justice scalia headed the office of legal counsel. justice alito was in the office of legal counsel, where his signature issue was signing statements. chief justice roberts served in the attorney general's office working on these issues, which i think will orient the court to look favorably on the president's position. but the way they do it could have dramatic consequences, because congress has other
powers, and the president has other exclusive powers, like the commander-in-chief power. can congress use its spending power to limit the way the president exercises the commander-in-chief power? could congress say to the president, no money may be spent for military operations in libya? or no money may be spent for a surge in iraq? these are important questions that i think will be implicated by the way the court resolves the clinton case. >> now is a good time to go get some coffee. the patent act, which is enormously important to a lot of people who make a lot of money out of it, says in section 101 that things that are invented, etc., may be patentable subject matter.
this is the mouth of the funnel. these are things that are eligible for patents. the patent act goes on and says there are other requirements, has to be a novelty, etc. but now we are talking about what gets into the ballpark of what may be patentable. it seems brought on its face, but for many, many decades, there has been a doctrine in the case law including before the current version of the statute was enacted that said that no one may seek or get a patent based on the law of nature. if an apple fell on your head and you want to patent the law of gravity, you are out of luck. that is viewed as part of the common all of humankind. you may not go to the patent office and get a patent on that.
now the caveat is that you may seek a patent on a particular novel and useful applications of the law of nature. most things that improve our lives probably would not work if they tried to do so in defiance of the laws of nature, right? things do not fall upwards. to have an application that is useful, and in addition does not foreclose the utilization of a law of nature to others. now we have a patent in the supreme court that has been upheld by the supreme court that is a patent for the
extraction of bodily fluids, looking at certain readings and thinking. the question is whether that is something that is patentable. what exactly going on is, there are certain medications that are good only up to a point, and then they start being bad for you. so there is a very important area for doctors to try to take your bodily fluids and see how the drug has metabolized, just to see whether you are in the correct therapeutic range. if it is higher than 250 you are doing well, but if you go over 400, not so good. the question is whether you can patent a blood test to look at the metabolites of this drug and think about whether you are between the two under 5400. -- 250 and 400.
the federal circuit says yes. it seems a very difficult argument to make in the supreme court, because the supreme court had this issue five years ago. i argue that case on the side of the respondent at that time, and it was clear that there was a fair amount of hostility on the part of the bench to the probability that it was patentable. they took it again after sending it back to the federal circuit once, so i think is a fairly obvious that a number of people on the court are interested in this issue, and it is very difficult issue. this patent is sort of simple minded, and you cannot really keep doctors from practicing medicine. it gets a little bit more complicated than that because there are whole industries that are hugely beneficial that work on the proposition of investing
billions of dollars and bickering out whether particular natural compounds, aided by laws of nature and can be turned into a pill that cures dementia or a number of other things. at the end of the day, if you take a pill, it is the interaction of a compound based on the laws of nature as to how the compound is expected to interact with the bodily fluids. so they are very sensitive questions for the court as to how far it can go and applies the law of nature doctrine to this area without endangering whole areas of industry and science that people would can see are properly subject to patents, because otherwise people would not have invested in them. it is very interesting issue. there is a lot of money and investments writing on it, but it is patent.
>> i am going to discuss briefly fcc versus fox television. i wrote the certification petition in this case. i am sure my colleagues would love it if you like to read more of the brief to us. with respect to this case, this is a bell -- a number of television stations and others are challenging the fcc prohibition on the broadcast of indecent material. three terms ago, the supreme court held at that policy was permissible under a statute, the administrative procedures act, but the court left open the constitutional question. the case went back to the second circuit for oral arguments and briefings on those questions for the matter was handled by mr. estrada. there were 3 specific broadcast in the case. the first one was in in 2002
when the singer cher what is euphemistically called the f- bomb during the billboard music awards. the following year, nicole richie did the same thing with the f-bomb and the s-word. in a third incident, nypd blue showed the unclothed buttocks of a woman on national television. after wood to the supreme court, it went back to the second circuit for discussion of the constitutional issues, and the second circuit identified two possible constitutional problems. the first one is it said that in decency bands generally are seen as content specific prohibitions on speech. things that focus on the specific material that is at issue, and that is generally something that receives strict scrutiny, the courts high standard of review, the most
searching type of review. the second circuit said the supreme court had issued a decision that gave the government special latitude when it comes to matters that are broadcast over the public airwaves. the second circuit in its opinion suggested the rationale for the pacific a decision had eroded over time because of new technology and the like, but it did not only decide and get into that whole question. the second thing it said was that the sec probe mission was just unconstitutionally vague. -- the fcc's prohibition. there was not rhyme or reason between the funds it levied in the ones it had not. there was not a real difference in the broadcast that got fines and the ones that did not. so the government of the certification petition based on the issue of constitutional vagueness.
the broader question as whether or not the fcc's indecency policy violates the constitution itself under the first or fifth amendment. some suggested that means the court wants to look at the rationale for the pacifica decision itself. the broad casters have not filed the brief. one could anticipate they would defend the second circuit's rationale about no rhyme or reason. the ultimate question will be about how much they want to get into this should pacifica be overruled. i think it would be whether they would be overruled are not. if they do, this has the potential to be a blockbuster. >> pleading is the opposite of, what? that is a lot of obscenities. >> deliberate.
>> they talk about a fleeting obscenity, rather than a non fleeting obscenity. >> first, no one is talking about obscenities. >> expletive, i am sorry. >> it is in decency, and the question whether the single parents of a curse word can be -- utterance of a curse word can be sanctioned by steep fines per affiliate on each of the networks. part of the problem is that the fcc takes the view that you have to address them every time they occur, news broadcasts, and even if you are covering a live event such as a game. >> or panel discussion. >> one of the tough arguments
was c-span radio, which is a broadcast station, covered the argument, and all three members of the second circuit or cursing a blue streak. [laughter] at some point, one of them asked the council for the government, we have c-span broadcast every judgment this panel has said, things people normally do not hear the judges say. it is clearly relevant, are you going to go after c-span? and the council went -- [laughter] and that was only the tip of the iceberg. >> thank you. professor jones, you are going to talk about eyewitness testimony. >> in perry versus new hampshire, the issue is simple, and that is when and i would guess it identifies the defendant as a perpetrator outside of court, under what
circumstances will the court allow out that information to come in at trial? that is, the witness can take the stand and say all the night of the robbery i pointed to him and said, that is the guy. it had been since 1977 the supreme court has had a serious look at the standards for letting an eyewitness identification testimony, and the court's analysis basically centers on reliability. that is, we will allow that testimony if the circumstances around the making of that identification more reliable. but we have learned a lot about i would ask identification and miss identification and unreliability since 1977, and the social science has changed, mostly because of wrongful convictions. it is undisputed in the 270- plus wrongful convictions, the number one cause was eyewitness this identification.
and about 75% of the cases where a person had been exiled you read it with dna evidence, and i -- exonerate it with dna evidence, i would guess miss identification played a key role in the case. would best misidentification played a key role in the case. clearly, the standards we have been using since 1977 are not protecting it against unreliable eyewitness identification in court. that is the question they could address, that is they could refine some of the language from earlier cases. the very specific question based here presents a unique set of facts that may give them an out from addressing that question, and that is in the overwhelming majority of cases where there is an eyewitness to identification of court, the police have initiated it. it is either a line up with the defendant in the lineup, a photo array, or they bring the suspect to the witness and say,
is this the guy? in those cases, the supreme court has said, we want to look at whether the police did anything that is unduly suggestive. whether it was, is this the guy, he is in handcuffs, or is it a lineup were the witness said, it was a black guy with dreadlocks, and everybody else in the lineup is white. those are the kind of things with the supreme court has said, that could be bundled the suggested. -- unduly suggestive. in this case, the police did not orchestrate the identification. this was a situation where the police came to the scene, they stopped the guy who seemed to be in the area who matched the description. it went to interview the witness and they said, what does the guy look like? she said, it was a tall black guy. they ask for more description. it is the guy down there in the parking lot with the police officer.
they did not make the guy standing there, they did not bring the defendant to the witness's attention, but she gave that description. the defense on appeal argues, that was until we suggest of identification, and it does not matter whether the police initiated it or orchestrated it. the fact of the matter is is not reliable. -- is unreliable. the lower court said, if the police did not do anything wrong, we will not get into whether it is unreliable and violates due process. the specific issue the court has to address is, is it president on the -- on theprecedent. in this case, in light of what we know about wrongful identification, it is interesting because the witness, a latino woman, she said it was a tall black guy, that is all i know. she is later shown to
defended's -- the defendant's picture in an array of photographs and cannot pick him out. later at trial, she does not make an identification, saying that i did not get a good look at his face. she is the only what is to -- only witness who actually witnessed and could identify the person. no one else actually saw the theft. we have a situation where there is actually a risk of miss identification. she cannot definitively say this is the guy, other than he is the one in the parking lot near the scene and with the police officer at the time. the supreme court could simply say, the police officer did nothing wrong, our president has -- our precedent has always involved police officer- involved a out-of-court identification, usually because that is the way it occurs, or the court could take into account what has happened since 1977 and what we now know about eyewitness and reliability. for example, one of the factors the supreme court has instructed the or courts to take
into -- lower courts to take into account and whether the guy with this identification is reliable and is admissible is the certainty. if the guy with a says, i am totally positive. and about 75%, the witness was absolutely certain, and all of the social climate research we -- social science research we now have says certainty does not equal reliability. it is no longer widely respected as a factor. the supreme court could issue a narrow ruling on whether the police must be involved for a due process violation, or the court could take the opportunity, which this case presents, to take a broader look at the unreliability of eyewitness identification and put some restrictions on their admissibility.
>> i think i could start with a disclaimer that i was once a prosecutor. i think you are right that identifications tend to be on duly accredited by juries and not as reliable as people think, because people are nervous and what not. i once had a bank teller in court to identify the deputy marshal as the bank robber. [laughter] and the guy he was actually the bank robber still got convicted. but what is the limiting principal of an inquiry that looks at the reliability of in court i.d. or out of court? is the constitution giving the criminal defendant the right to
have the reliability of evidence, all evidence tested by means other than cross- examination? i think there are many other types of evidence, dna is not good enough, that before the prosecutor is allowed to put these things in front of the jury, they might be the subject of a long fight in front of a judge as to whether this is "reliable enough." if you take out the involvement of the cops, what is the limiting principal that will keep the trial in a criminal case from shifting from the jury to a judge? >> in the interest of full disclosure, i used to be a public defender. i have also had cases of this misidentification. identification. i think we are in a different posture than all other forms of evidence. that is, the supreme court since 1967 has recognized the
fallibility and the vulnerability of eyewitness testimony, and has already determined that should be tested pre-trial. so we are not charging a new -- charting a new course. the prosecutor, if the defense wants to challenge the out-of- court identification, the defendant already has the right to do that. the question is, what restrictions can or should the supreme court put on the use of eyewitness testimony, and to what extent should the defendant be allowed to dedicate its -- litigate its unreliability, given what we now know about the fallibility, of eyewitness testimony, given the amount of time with this is got -- witnesses in good faith it wrong? jurisdictions across the country have placed all kinds of limits and restrictions, not supreme court, constitutional level, but state court requiring
judges to give the jury specific instructions on eyewitness unreliability. has conducted hearings on more elaborate than the standards hearing pretrial, before i will let this testimony in. there are many issues raised. >> the federal constitutional rights, how is the court to decide eyewitness testimony from all the other forms of evidence? >> i think in terms of forensic evidence, that issue has been at least preliminarily addressed by the national academy of sciences report in 2009, which basically said all non-dna forensic science, but mark analysis, -- like hair analysis and bite mark analysis, whether it is not dna, that has some reliability problems. that is already in the pipeline for challenge, fingerprints and things like that. with respect to eyewitness
identification, i think the court can single it out because it is incredibly, incredibly powerful evidence, and the court has already recognized the fallibility of it. unlike confessions and jailhouse informant testimony, where there is an issue about reliability, this is the number one cause of wrongful conviction. >> the factors that raise doubts about the eyewitness id, with one exception, and probably all were put before the jury, right? head of the lineup, you are unable to identify this person. so all this is before the jury come up with one exception, i think, and that is information on the general unreliability of eyewitness identifications. is that a constraint on the putting before the jury, the evidence but experts? >> no, it is the defendant does not have the right to do it, a crowd judge could allow the -- a trial judge could allow the defendant to do it, and several courts have begun to allow the
defense to call an expert on the unreliability of what this id's. it -- of eyewitness identification or cross racial identification. that can go before the fact finder. the problem with allowing the testimony, if it is not reliable, you do not want the jury to rely on it. it does not command. it is like letting the effort -- expert come in and they made up science. the jury can hear it, but if they rely on it and say, that sounded good to me, it sounds credible and could make a determination based on unreliable information. the judge is the gatekeeper to keep out information that is not reliable and the judge should make that information and judgment. trott and only allow the jury hear -- and make the judgment pretrial and allowed only the jury to hear information that is reliable.
>> baltimore is a very, very large distance from washington, d.c., in many ways most people do not recognize. the questions and answers are the perfect segue into talking about this, which is can you put this on? ineffective counsel. you have to take notice when the supreme court decides they want to hear this many cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel. there are four, some would say five issues that raise this with the supreme court this term. i want to talk about one particular case. and then another set of cases. keep in mind, the framework for this. the sixth amendment guarantees the right of the accused to have the aid of counsel. the supreme court has interpreted that to mean you have the right to effective assistance of counsel, had to raise the claim you have received an effective assistance -- ineffective assistance of counsel is a level that violates the sixth amendment, yet approved the council was deficient and that deficiency was presidential -- was
prejudicial. that is, the proceedings might have turned out differently. the supreme court has been kind of not very sympathetic about the question. the have afforded it resumption of effective assistance of counsel. you may remember eight justices on the court, who said it was likely or reasonably a strategic decision for the council, the same at the capitol of trial to put on no witnesses and not make a closing argument. two years ago, justice sotomayor said it was reasonable that it was not effective assistance of counsel and a case where an attorney who had only been admitted to the bar five months was handed the responsibility of the sentencing
phase of a capital trial and failed to do any investigation or put on mitigating evidence that would help the defendant. so the landscape does not look great for these claims, but the fact the supreme court has taken so many and that they raise this issue from different perspectives i think is important. one set of cases, there is another, raised the issue in the context of pleas. what happens when council does one of two things, either fails to convey to the defendant that the prosecutor made a plea offer, or provides incorrect advice to the defendant, where the defendant was prepared to admit that he had shot a woman four times and was prepared to confess and try and get a plea, but his attorney told him the prosecutor could not possibly prevail on a charge of assault with intent to commit murder because all of the shots, the four shots he had fired and had
landed in the victim, were all below the waist. counsel advised his client that, therefore, the prosecutor could not prevail on the charges. turns out this is absolutely not true. they want to draw and the defendant, of course, was convicted. we have the plea case. a significant issue is, what is the remedy? if you wanted to say, for example, in the missouri case, ineffective assistance of counsel, they get a letter from the prosecutor and says here is the plea offer and never tells his client, is it possible to imagine the remedy? the district court said, well, we ought to require specific performance of the plea that was offered. in other words, we are to require now that the defendant now be allowed to take the plea that was originally offered that he never heard about. there is some contention about that. you may have something to say
about whether that is a workable solution. the other case that is important is maple forces thomas. -- maples v. thomas. the question in this case was, how much more representation can one criminal defendant received before it rises to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel? this arises out of alabama. in many ways, i think this case pulls together many of the strands of concern that had been raised in prior cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel from alabama. it is important know the context. alabama is a jurisdiction that does not provide indigent criminals council for convicts in post conviction proceedings. they also provide counsel and try proceedings in capital -- in trial proceedings and capital -- in capital cases, and direct appeals, but they pass the attorney fees -- a cap the attorney fees that can be recovered at $100.
-- $1000. very often, you have not very experienced attorneys who are working on capital cases in alabama. in alabama, you also do not need a unanimous jury verdict to impose the sentence of death, 10 out of 12 is sufficient. if you put that together, there are a lot of cases out of alabama, such as these two, in which quarry maples went to trial with no council, very -- pro bono council, very experienced counsel, -- very inexperienced council, at both the guilt phase and sentencing phase. the council failed to put on any evidence that he had been taking crystal meth and crack on the night of the murders, which may have suggested that he under alabama law did not have been the capacity to be responsible. at the sentencing phase, they put on no evidence about his bouts with depression, the fact he was suicidal, abandoned by his mother, abuse, and other
mitigating evidence that might have helped at the sentencing phase. they were so overwhelmed at the sentencing phase that the attorneys themselves said to the jury, we know it looks like we're stumbling around in the dark. obviously, he was sentenced to death. then at the post conviction phase, he seemed to hit the jackpot. he got to attorneys from -- two paternities from -- two attorneys from sullivan and cromwell, a new york law firm that agreed to represent him, did his post conviction work, and then they disappeared. when i sent notice to the attorneys saying that his petition for post conviction release had been denied, they received a letter back from the firm saying, returned to sender, left law firm. the circuit clark did not make any other effort to contact the firm or mr. maples in prison. the deadline for his appeal passed on post conviction. in the habeas proceeding, when he learned the deadline had passed, he was lucky and and got to attorneys, very good
attorneys, but the alabama courts were clear he had defaulted, failed to appeal his post conviction, his denial of post conviction release, and the 11th circuit has also said he defaulted procedurally and he is not able to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. the court will have to deal with that issue coming out of alabama, and deal with the plea issues. and are at least two other cases. and we have to presume the court wants to say something comprehensive, perhaps, about this that would justify them taking the set of cases. >> we have about 30 minutes left, and i want to save 20 minutes for questions. we have been talking so far about the cases at the supreme court, that they have granted certiorari and have agreed to hear, but there is a bunch of stuff people think they might hear. i cannot predict this, but you all can. there is health care,
affirmative action, sd-1070, there may be criminal cases. if you could spend a couple of minutes, so we could have room for audience questions, on any of these cases and anything else coming down the pike. >> there are two affirmative- action cases that might make it to the court. one is the u.t. case. the supreme court in the last crop of justice o'connor upheld an affirmative action program for the university of michigan as said it was appropriate to take race into account. if you do it any way that is personal that isa quota and do other stuff so no court can figure out what your doing.
it is so if you may get -- so it is individualized, so nobody has a smoking gun that race was the actual fact, then you can do it. , then you can do it. universities, shockingly, are able to do these things. as long as that is the rule, the supreme court will be interested in coming back to that issue so soon. what makes it somewhat interesting is that, in the intake -- well, it was thrown out in the 1960's -- in texas, the late republican who was very close to everybody here, passed
a statute that said that come in order to increase the minority students in texas public education, there would be a guaranteed 10% for the top 10 at each high school that would be eligible to go into the universities. the question is whether you can double dip, whether you can have a statute that will give you an arm for -- an umph on the 10% rule, but still have some deference to the university if it is deemed not enough and also one of the types of affirmative actions that was upheld. i would say that you deprogram was upheld -- that a ut program
was up held. he rode a special concurrence that he went along with it but that the court was out of its mind. if you have a panel of the fifth circuit tell you that this is ok based on existing precedent and that the person who takes a different view is that the court should overrule this, it does not sound like a good indication for the supreme court to get involved. something coming out of the sixth circuit if it gets out, it has to do with the michigan side of the story. after the plans were polled in the supreme court, there was a popular referendum that
essentially a lot affirmative- action in public education in michigan. as a result of that, the one school the went to the supreme court cannot do it anymore. the sixth circuit in a two-one panel threw that out as a violation of equal protection based on the theory of a couple of cases -- hunter and another case involving the seattle school district -- which say that it is unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection to place political impediments to minorities in the attainment of certain benefits. the cases that the court actually cited involved trying to entrench actual discrimination, people were trying to make it difficult to get rid of racial covenants were
to make it difficult to desegregate schools. insofar as the broader case did not say that affirmative action was a remedy for discrimination, but it was an affirmative good was the rationale. but was not a good fit between what the panel said and the cases that it cited. the sixth circuit just took the case if it gets out of the sixth circuit in that form, the supreme court will ticket. i do not think it will be 5-4 in the supreme court either, but now that these six circuit have taken their own, it may not get their. >> the presumption is -- given what happened with citizens united recently, i do not think we can presume that simply because the court decided in the
last decade that they will not revisit the issue that you cannot get four justices to agree in that case. so there is some anxiety and nervousness about the ut case. when texas announced this 10% plan, the students to graduated top 10% in the high school, people said that was the answer and you did not have to do with the messy business a racism turn because of our segregated school system, yay, we will have black students to make it in. there have been able to demonstrate in ways that this is deeply problematic. it could exclude a black person who's grades are not that good
but there s.a.t. scores or act scores are really good. it undermines the idea of looking at the content of the academic program and so forth. they have some interesting information and data that suggests the 10% is not the answer and give robust support that universities have to engage in a kind of more individualized process that gives them an opportunity to look more closely at the student in the way that the broader case suggested. the presentation of the case is quite strong given the data that ut has been able to develop. >> health care.
>> the health care law, if it makes it to the supreme court this term -- i do not think that is a surgeon could -- a certainty any longer. >> 1 not? >> -- why not? >> april 2015 is the first time that a person would have to pay $95 for not having coverage. they're standing issues. the sixth circuit plan they said that they need to start saving money now. but the health care law has the provision excusing anyone for whom it would be a financial hardship. so they have gone out of having
a real case or controversy. i always thought, at the end of the day, it would be a bill and it would not be close and it would come down to justice kennedy. very late predictions, you had mentioned that he makes predictions. i thought it would be at least seven-2 to uphold, maybe eight- one. and justice thomas, because he is willing to reconsider its neighbor a various. i would assume that the chief justice would sign the opinion to myself -- would assign the opinion to myself and the only way to deal with social problems is to have a single-payer government-run program rather than having incentives to participate in the private market. the notion of whether this is within the jurisdictional box of
commerce is on almost anonymously ridiculously is a concept. there are a lot of the things congress might do with that jurisdiction. but arguments the do not work when the only question is whether it is within the subject matter. as you and i have discussed, the attack on the social security law -- if is a jurisdictional question. when the minimum wage law passed, congress can pass a minimum wage of $5 an hour and it can pass a minimum wage of $5,000 an hour. that is the nature of jurisdiction.
there are many dr. national -- dr. national -- many doctrinational questions. i think judge suttons opinion makes a difference by identifying the fact that this is a question of inactivity. nobody can be sure that there will not be using. when they do need them, it will be provided for them in some fashion. the cost will be transferred to others if you'll be uninsured. that is a very active process of self insurance. if you put all of that together, this will not be seen as a difficult case. miguel thinks otherwise. >> actually, i think it is a very complicated issue on a number of levels.
dealing with the first issue of whether it will get to the supreme court, we should all agree that it would be in the public interest, as contentious as it is, to have it done with and get it on its way to the supreme court justice and as we can. it is a clean legal issue. you do not need to have any factual issues on that. we have had rulings from multiple courts on all sides of the issue. it is nonetheless very clear that the strategy of the administration is to do cartwheels to keep the case out of the supreme court so as not to have a ruling before the 2012 election. they take every extension. they do everything they can to stretch it out. just a you know, if a case on this issue is not taken by basically the second week in january 2012, you will not have a ruling before the election it will not be heard.
unless they have a special sitting. i will bet you any amount of money that the administration -- if you look of the composition of the panel, there is no way in heck that the 11th circuit will get it. even when the court gets it, it is not for in a ruling until after the election. once you get there, the issues are really hard. every time you ask the supreme court to return and back -- to overturn an act of congress, is a difficult thing for the court to do. and congress comes to court with an assumption of preference. as to the jurisdiction, if this were in fact a tax, you may be right, it would be a jurisdictional question.
the administration of the tax issue is not aided when he was on a speaking circuit saying it was not a tax and he was on tv with summit with a dictionary saying that this is the definition of a tax. at some point, there is a question over whether you're dealing with user fees or burdens that could reasonably be called a tax, whether you're owed some level of deference to the guy who signed the thing and take it at his word. but congress issues very hard. i have a lot of respect for judge sutton. i think his analysis was a very honest attempt to grapple with a difficult question. i also have a lot of respect to
the clinton appointment in the 11th circuit. the came to very different conclusions. >> do have respect for their opinion as well? [laughter] >> i do, but they're the ones who said that the junction tax would apply. if you except the proposition that you're not supposed to take -- if you accept the proposition that you're not supposed to take the president of the united states at his word. >> it is quite clear that, if there is a surcharge of two 0.5% on the federal income tax, that is a tax. you might think we will not pull this in an exercise of power.
but that does not change the fact of that. >> we really should keep moving. i'm sorry. did you have any cases you wanted to talk about? >> we have a couple of other criminal cases. there's one case that involved an analysis of brady vs. maryland. once again, we have a louisiana case where the government has failed to turn over exculpatory information to the defense as is constitutionally required and the supreme court has to do an analysis of whether the defendants' constitutional rights were violated. and there is an area where i suspect there will be a lot of litigation for years to come. in this case, it presents a clash between recent precedent requiring that, when a government wants to introduce documents or analysis or forensic analysis or reports, they have to call before they
perform the analysis. it represents a clash between that principle and another principle of evidence that would allow another expert to testify and give a basis for their opinion. i can tell you what the report said. those two rules, the confrontation clause and the role of expert testimony clash, giving the supreme court's an opportunity to treat that. >> there is no shortage of commentary on the arizona law and on sb 1070. most people are predicting that the court will grant cert for reasons that seem obvious and compelling. not only has the ninth circuit and joined a law or upheld the injunction of the law, but other
states have followed arizona and enacted their own laws. my own set of georgia has, alabama has, utah has, indiana has. in each of those cases, except for alabama, courts have joined the enforcement of the act on the doctrine of pre-emption. alabama has stated decision, while it further studies the question. the national association of state legislature, national council state legislature reports that over 30 states have significant immigration legislation pending. so there is an obvious need for guidance. the one caveat i would offer is that this involves a question of preemption. the issue in these cases is not racial profiling. a lot of public discussion centers on that. but the issue is whether or not these laws are consistent with
federal statutes. the court might well think that congress will get around to addressing this issue and it is congress that ought to be providing the guidance. with that caveat in mind, that the court might decide to sit back for a while and see if congress does anything, the other factors would seem overwhelmingly to indicate that the court ought to take a look at it. in which case, i think this is a case that does come down to justice kennedy. it is hard to know in events which he will do. he has been sympathetic to pre- emption claims in the past in a way that would make you think he would be willing to side with the ninth circuit on at least some aspect of arizona's law. on the other hand, as he has done in some many areas, he has gone both ways. it is that to be a close argument. >> could you identify the precise preemptive aspect of federal law that is said to be
operative in this case? >> there would be two. there are two types of provisions in the arizona law that have been challenged. one would be law-enforcement that authorize state officials to, in essence, enforce federal immigration law. the other set would be new crimes in the state of arizona. arizona crimes that are based on federal immigration extraction's. >> i am asking for the flip side of that. >> the federal pre-emption would be that, with respect to the law enforcement provisions, there is a federal law that dictates how it is that the federal government and said sought to cooperate. the attorney general -- government and states ought to cooperate. it is also due to the attorney general's supervision and control. it ought to appeal even to a
justice like justice scalia who thinks it is a violation of separation of powers for congress to vest local authorities with federal law. so why would the arizona no law and not fallen that? the pre-emption argument is that arizona is going around the system of having the attorney general specify the officers and directly authorizing their officers to go ahead. with respect to the criminal provisions, it is simply a matter of federal discretion as to how to enforce federal immigration law, which is complicated by the fact that you're introducing local state prosecutions. >> i guess the question i want to ask is that it seems to me that for reasons we do not rule have time to get into, both aspects of the problem really do involved a claim that the
preemption flows with the discretionary authority of the attorney general over the enforcement of the immigration laws. in order to make that stick -- and i do concede that a federal policy may have pre-emptive effect -- but it does not give -- a dozen of the discretion have to say that the current level of enforcement of immigration laws, which is to say whether you think of it as lax or just right, is a federal policy and therefore additional enforcement of the immigration laws, you know -- >> no, i do not think that the federal government has to say current level. but the systematic level is where it is supposed to be. in case by case, the attorney general has to have discretion with what to do with a particular aliens. if the state is -- >> but the state law says that
you bring them to the feds. then the ag has the discretion. >> not in the provisions of state criminal law that says to put them in state jail. that may not be the disposition that the attorney joe was with that case. >> with that, we have some roving microphones. if you raise your hand, we will bring them over to you. >> i was wondering if you would respond to the assertion that the government could do cartwheels to keep the health care case out of the supreme court this term. >> i don't to speak about anything that is not in the public record. i cannot speculate about what they're doing since i left on june 30. i think there's nothing that
could be farther from the truth about the government's expedition of all of these cases. we went with erratically fast briefing schedule on every single circuit court in order to get proper resolution of these issues. i cannot speak to what is happening now with respect to the supreme court and whether or not issues should percolate more and the like. but the notion that the administration has been dragging its heels, i am not hard pressed to think of a set of cases in which any administration has moved more quickly in the circuit courts than these health care cases. >> the government has not pressed a jurisdictional issues that could have postponed litigation until 2015. they have chosen not to press those issues, but to proceed to get resolutions in these cases. >> those issues were raised in all the district courts until you lost them or they lost them.
[laughter] do notice that he said that we have been expeditious in the circuit courts. we have gone through the process that exists. i am sure there will be expeditious about filing for a fruitless and bond in the 11th circuit. they have the legal option is to do as the government has done many times in other cases of national importance been going straight to the supreme court. they were very careful not to do it. >> the government has sought cases in which there was a massive injection with a real social problem at that moment. hear, the law goes into affect
in 2014. there was a circuit court judgment petition that was filed without any dissent. the notion that this would meet those standards is a very hard argument. >> is -- this issue will benefit from having more judges look at .t the more i think that will apparent that is split up into the subject matter of commerce among the states. i cannot imagine why the administration would not want this issue resolved before the elections. >> really? >> yes. it is a political matter. i do not know what the incentive
could possibly be. >> on the case about the baby boy, if i and stand it correctly, perhaps a preliminary issue would be jurisdiction and whether that would implicate baker vs. carr. another is one case the justice scalia thought was wrongly decided and like to overturn it, which is baker vs. carr. >> it maybe a good vehicle for saying disparaging things about baker vs. carr. but the question in the case -- [laughter] is whether the recognition power lies with the president and
whether the congress law invades the president's recognition power. the question is whether or not to recognize that jerusalem is within israel. but that is not the question presented in the case. the question is who gets to make that call and that is a legal question. i do not think that the court will look over the political question of it. >> the way you characterized the lower court's decision in the eyewitness case was that the police did not do anything wrong and that makes it ok? >> because the police officers did not orchestrate the eyewitness id, we do not have to engage in an analysis over whether there's a due process violation. >> that is tragically wrong and here's why. [laughter] every case i know of where the court has said that the police
did not do anything wrong so we will not allow direct me is a in extortionary -- allowed a remedy is an exclusionary case. the question here is that, whether or not the evidence is probative in the first place. it seems to me there is a massive shift in our constitutional law if we move toward saying that the purpose of the trial is no longer to assess probative evidence whether not to tell the truth, but whether the police did everything to check all of the procedural boxes. police seeing a shift from trials being viewed as determination of the truth toward whether or not a trial should be viewed simply whether the government checked all the red boxes and, if they did, it does not matter if the guy is guilty or innocent enough?
>> i do not think it is quite that drastic of a shift. the court should focus on not just whether or not the police did anything wrong. the interest here vindicated by the court i witnessed by the dedication testimony, it just so happens that the overwhelming majority of cases deal with police said the vacation. what were the circumstances? were these circumstances of that identifications adjustive as to make that testimony unreliable at trial. it does not matter if a policeman was involved. the judge should not let it in because it is so unreliable. we do not care whether or not the police was involved and the
lower court said no. just like the suppression of evidence acquired unconstitutionally. that is police conduct. if we do not have that, we do not have to reach the circumstances regarding reliability. i agree with you. that is just wrong. the court should address that. if they do, it raises the issues about what we know about unreliable i would sid. >> that is a good said would to talk about one of the cases that i think will get the most attention this term in the supreme court. that is the case of florence purses board of freeholders in new jersey. it is an interesting case that i think will have tremendous resonance for many people. it involves his question about deference to law enforcement. it involves a man who was arrested in new jersey after he was pulled over, and he was not driving. his wife was driving.
the police asked who was the owner of the car. she told them who the owner was. they took her husband and they arrested him. they found in his -- the found in the computer that he had an outstanding warrant. he had failed to pay a fine and the judge held in contempt. he had in fact paid the fine. he carried with him on the copy with the seal on it indicating that he had in fact already paid the fine. he showed it to the officer, but the officer said he had to go with the computer and they arrested him. they took him to jail and he was held for a week. he should have seen a magistrate or judge within 24 hours. but he was held in two different jails in a week. he was said to -- he was subjected to two different strip searches, he alleges. when it was finally brought before a judge, it turned out that he had paid the a standing or did he should not have been arrested. it raises the question whether
or not the deal can have the policy of blanket strip searching everyone who comes in or rather each individual is entitled to the individualized determination over whether there is reasonable suspicion that the individual might be carrying contraband or might otherwise be carrying a concealed weapon. this is clearly a case in which he did not do anything wrong. he was in the right appeared he was arrested. he went through this ordeal. it is also true that 14 million americans are arrested every year. very often, they are arrested and ultimately not charged. he has now filed a class-action including people who have been arrested for not having it -- pulled over for not having a taillight having a loud muffler. they case in which 75% people stopped on the highway were
black. you have the rays context. but you also have the context of 14 million people being arrested. police -- if police do make mistakes, do we want a rule that allows at the jail a blanket policy of subjective everyone who comes into the jail who may be arrested for a variety of reasons that are not even serious crimes to be subjected to a strip search? i think this case will get a lot of attention. they are a lot of breaks filed on this -- a lot of greecbriefs filed on this case. >> i want to thank everyone for a great presentation. [applause] we will see next year whether our predictions are right.
[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama has proposed that $3 trillion package that would end the bush era tax cuts for the wealthy. he says he will veto any deficit-reduction plan that does not include increased revenue. you can see his comments tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. mitch mcconnell criticized his the visit -- his deficit-reduction plan. you can offer your comments about the president's deficit- reduction plan on line on facebook. tonight, the impact of the proposed merger of at&t and team mobil, on u.s. jobs and the
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [audible conversations] >> the hearing will come to order. good morning, and welcome to our distinguished panel of witnesses, secretary napolitano, and robert mueller, and first time confirmed, happy to welcome the new direcr of the national counterterrorism center, matthew olson. this past weekend in ceremonies and vigils across the nation, we
stopped to remember the nearly 3,000 people killed ten years ago in the attacks of september 11, 2001, and to appreciate the acts oferoism and service by countless americans on that day and every day since to protect our homeland and defeat the violent islamic extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and drew us into the war that we are in. the 9th anniversary of 9/11 last year didn't get, obviously, the same degree of attention, and either will the 11th anniversary next year, and in some sense, that's why we're here this morning. this annual status of the threat against our homelnd hearing with the heads of these three critically important agencies has become a tradition of our
committee, and senator collins and i wanted very much to hold it after 9/11 to look back a little bit, but really to look forward and to make the point that our workoes on, our work to protect the homeland goes on. even though we had fresh warnings that alerteds over the past few days, over this weekend of comeme ration of a specific confirmed threat, there's already evidence that in a quite natural reaction, the people are beginning to forget how real the threat of islamic extremism continues to be. there was a gallop poll taken last year that showed terrorism ranked at the bottom of six concerns, six choices that people had to make in this country, understandably probably
because of the intensity of the economic concerns that we had. ranked behind economy, jobs, federal couption, spending, and health care. and in a different way last week a study published by the cato institute calling for an abolition of the homeland security returning us to where we were pre-9/11. we may be the victims of the success that has been achieved in protecting the homeland since there's obviously not been another mass casualtyerrorist attack on american soil since 9/11, something a reality nobody would have predicted on that day. some have taken this lack of another large scale attack as further evidence to them, anyway, that the u.s. government exaggerated the danger posed by
islamic extremism and overreacted in the wake of 9/11. i belie this is a profoundly mistaken and ultimately irresponsible conclusion. we have weakened our enemies, and we have protected our homeland, but our enemies are not vanquished, and that's why our vigilance has to be constant and not limited to the understandable public attention given to a particular anniversary. as the senate committee on homeland security, it's our responsibility to make sure our national focus is not distracted from the threat for our witnesses and the thousands, tens of thousands of people who work with them. it is their constant responsibility 24/7/365 days 5 year to protect our homeland, so we welcome them to this annual threat hearing, and we thank them for the service and for all
that their respective agencies have had to do with the fact that we have not had another major terrorist attack against our homeland in the past ten years, but the violence islamic extremist ideology that motivated the attacks of 9/11 remains a poe tent force though weakened flout the world and increasingly though, of course, seems to have an effect in the radicalization of home grown terrorists incoming lone wolves. today, we've asked our three witnesses to help us answer at least three big questions. one is to take a quick look back to the extent with the u.s. government and what their agencies have done since 9/11 to, of course, the focus of this hearing is to discuss the current threat, the status of the threat of islamist terrorism
to our homeland, and then the third is to discuss what our government current sly doing to -- currently 1 -- is doing to counter that threat, so for me the question today is not are we safer than we were on 9/11. ithink it's self-evidently clear that we are safer. the question is what are we doing and what we should be doing to ensure that safety continues to be what it is and be greater in the face of the threat that we continue to face. the ten year anniversary of 9/11 has passed. the media and public attention will naturally fade, but this congress and future congresses, and this admistration and future administrations must stay focused on the threat and its ever evolving tactics until the ideology is truly vanquished and
gone. nator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the state of of maine became forever linked to the attacks of september 11th, 2001 when two of the hijackers, including the ring leader, mohamed atta, boarded and early morning flight to boston at the portland, maine jet port. from logan airport, they set in motion the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history by seizing control of the american airlines flight 11. that evening, members of congress gathered together on the steps of the capitol to express unity. a day that had begun in shock and anger ended with unity and
resolve. we resolve to ensure that our country had the tools to detect and detour future plots as well as to identify those who would do us harm. when chairman libberman and i awe -- lieberman and i authored the reform of prevention of terrorism agent in 2004, our government was to create a strong leader to coordinate the 17 separate agencies of the intelligence community and to change their culture from need to know to need to share so that next time the dots wouldbe connected in time to stop and attack. the operation that killed bin laden reasonable represented the kind of successful collaboration of intelligence and operations that we envisioned, information
is now being shared more effectively, both across the federal government and among federal agencies and their state, local, and tribal part nors. -- partners. just last week, dhs and the fbi announced a specific, credible, but unconfirmed threat related to the 9/11 anniversary. thed administration is taking 24 -- ts threat seriously and apopriately so. it has shared information and intelligence with state and local law enforcement officials at the targeted locations and others across the country. thankfully, there was not an incident over the weekend, but we must consider whether this particular threat has truly passed o whether the terrorists have just gone to ground. we must evaluate for how long
should we remain on heightened alert. this threat demonstrates yet again that the terrorists have not abandoned their quest to harm our country and our people. they continue to probe for vulnerabilities. much has changed in the past decade. we have vastly improved the sharing of information across the agencies at the federal level a with state and local emergency and law enforcement professionals. america's chemical facilities and sea ports were especially vulnerable a decade ago, and we took important steps to safeguard them. in the case of last week's terrorist threat, the decision to publicize the threat put millions of eyes and ears on the lookout for suspicious behavior on the eve of the september 11th
commemoration. we continue to expand our see something, say something law. the legislation that we've introduced would provide further protections against lawsuits for citizens who report suspicious activity indicating potential terrorist threats. whn it comes tour homeland security, however, we truly are only as strong as our weakest link. as we saw in 2009 with the christmas day bomber and major hasad's atta years later when warning signals are ignored or overlooked, our security is placed at risk. the tsa has strengthened airline passenger screening. nevertheless, a young man was
recently able to fly across country without a lid government issued id and with an expired border pass that did not even bear his name. similarly, the department of homeland security has bolstered the security of americans' borders and identification documents led to refugees with ties to al-qaeda were arrested in kentucky to help allegedly carry out attacks against our troops. how a known bomb maker whose fierprints we had had for years was able to enter our country on humanitarian grounds remains annanswered and troubling question. it appears, however, that this case may reflect the kinds of lack of imagination that the 9/11 commission found to be a
persistent failure. while the fbi's announces iring's ed's collected in iraq and afghanistan has up doubtedly helped u.s. war fighters, the rensic informion collected from these devices should also be used to screen those trying to enter our country, and we must ensure that the fbi has the resources necessary to do that job. we must ask this question -- are there other iraqi nationals granted asylum involved in attacking our troops? i know that the administration is reviewing the files of more than 51,000 iraqis admitted under this refugee program, but it's deeply troubling that we're still awaiting clear answers from the administration.
home grown terrorism is another challenge and evolving threat. this committee first sounded the alarm about home based terrorism five years ago and has held more than a dozen hearings on this topic. over the past two years, 31 arrests have been made in home grown plots by american citizens or legal, permanent residents, and enormous increase compared to the previous seven years dating ck to 2001. yet, the administrion's strategy for countering violent islamic extremism is insufficient to meet the threat. we shall never forget those whom we lost on september 11, 2001. as has beenoted often, the terrorists only have to get it
right once. we have to be right every time or suffer the consequences of an attack. we are surely much safer tan we were a decade ago, but we must be relentless in anticipating the changing tactics of terrorists. as a successful long decade search for osama bin laden proved, america's resolve is our most powerful weapon against those who seek to destroy our way of life. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator collins. secretary napolitano is first, but befe she testifies, the department of homeland security held a departmental commemoration of 9/11, and i was able to attend outside on the
plaza of the reagan building here in downtown washington, and the department showed a video made by people within the department about its history, particularly on that day, and i thought it was very impressive, and for me, moving, and i asked the secretary if she'd bring it today, so i'm sorry not everybody in the room can see it -- maybe that screen over there, but whoever's in charge of the machine at this point, please turn on the video. it's only about two or three mines. ♪ >> ten years ago, our nation suffered the worst terrorist attack in our history. we allemember the great sense of shock and sadness we felt that day. >> all of us remember where we were on that morning of september the 11, 2001. >> some of us lost family members, friends, colleagues, loved ones, and people we admired. >> nearly 3,000 lives were lost including citizens of more than 90 countries and of many faiths
and backgrounds. >> that day changed us as americans, as a people. >> it brought our society together with a remarkable theory of unity and changed how we look at threats om terrorists and led to major changes in government and led to the creation of this department, the department of homeland security. >> this september 11th, we remember those we lost, and we celebrate their lives. >> and we we commit to the -- recommit to the ideals of service and sacrifice. >> and support for the lives changed that day. >> america's stronger than we were a decade ago. we bounced back from the worst attack on our soil. >> we built a culture of resilience and will protect ourselves. >> our experience over the last ten years has also mde us smarter about the threats we face and how best to deal with them. we used knowledge to make us resilient, not just with terrorist attacks, but threats and disasters of all kinds.
>> the thanks goes to you. >> the men and women who work at the department of homeland security. >> every day you rise to the challenges that have been placed on us. >> dhs is there. you are there. rain or shine, day or night. >> in the washington area -- >> in the field or in one of more than 75 countries around the world. >> we're all part of the same team working tirelessly working to protect america. >> protecting our hometowns, communities, and neighbors. >> one dedicated group of individuals. >> we are -- >> proudly one dhs. >> as we mark the anniversary of one of the most tragic days -- >> we note to the great accomplishments. >> of the young department. >> i want to express my deep appreciation. >> and my gratitude what you do
every day to keep the cuntry safe. >> and so say to every one of you, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> well, i thought that was great. i hope my colleagues on the committee did. it really -- there'ssuch a powerful statement of the unity. i thought it was wonderful to includ secretary's ridge and cherff in it and all the sense of unities and resolve. i appreciate it very much, and with that, please proceed, secretary, with your testimony. >> well, thank you. thank you, chairman lieberman and senator collins, and members of the committee. i obviously appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the department of homeland security's efforts to keep our nation safe against ever evolving threats. this weekend, our nation observed the 10th anniversary of
9/11, and we honored nearly the 3,000 innocent victims as well as their friends, their colleagues, and their families. we saluted the many first responders and law enforcement officials who responded with such courage and conviction on that tragic day and in the days that followed. while these past few days remind us that we must remain individual lent and prepared as threats against our country remain, the recent anniversary of 9/11 is also a time to consider the progress we've made. as chairman lieberman noted, america is a stronger and more secure nation today. we bounced back from the worst attack on our soil, and we have made progress on every front to better protect ourselves. we used our experience to become more resilient, not only to terrorist attacks, but to threats and disasters of all kinds. following 9/11, the federal government income --
including many members on this commiee moverred -- moved quickly to develop a security framework to protect the country from attacks from abroad while balancing capabilities to prepare for, recoer, and respond to attacks here at home. a key element of the new security frame work included the creation of department of homeland security, and over the past ten years, dhs and its many partners across the federal government, across public and private sectors strengthened the homeland security enterprise to better mitigate and defend against every present and ever evolving threats. perhaps the best way to illustrate the progress we've made is to apply today's security architecture to what existed when the terrorist attacks of 9/11 occurred. the 9/11 plot, like many terrorist plots, began overseas which means our security layers
must be beginning 24 as well. with respect to intelligence, planning for 9/11 began several years before the actual attacks. bin laden's summoned operatives to afghanistan and discussed using commercial aircraft as weapons. we strengthened the depth intelligence enterprise to get the information to where the operation may occur. with respect to visa security, all the 9/11 hijackers applied for visas overseas. today, the dhs visa security program deploys trained special agents to high risk posts around the world to conduct targeted in-depth reviews of visas before they reach the united states. ..
serious agreements and more are under way. after 9/11 the federal government discovered that information exist about the hijackers well before and after they came to the united states but disinformation hd not been coordinated, shared and analyzed. since 9/11, the federal government along with its state, local, tribal private sector partners has made significant improvements